- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:59:27 -0400
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>> It affects query. BGP matching is simple entailment.
>> The wording must change there surely?
>
> Perhaps...
>
>> Either that or
>>
>> SELECT * { ?s ?p "foo"^^xsd:string }
>>
>> will stop matching on data now converted to "foo" without a software change to the query engine.
>
> Right, true.
>
> I don't have a clear feeling on how we should/could/ought to proceed. Is a decision from another WG enough new information for us to reopen that discussion?
I am extremely hesitant to make any changes to SPARQL based on an
unimplemented decision of a Working Group that will not likely not have
even had proposed/drafted text by the time we are going to Last Call.
>> Existing databases + new software will see a change.
It's my opinion (both personally and as co-chair of this WG) that any
change made by the new RDF WG will need to be a change that works in
concert with SPARQL 1.1 as it exists today -- that is, software may need
to change, but it will need to change because the new RDF documents
specify new behavior that works in concert with SPARQL 1.1.
>> In my experience, it is OWL tools that will be affected as they like to use xsd:string in RDF for ontologies.
>
> I've seen xsd:string in a couple of other places too, but it's fairly uncommon.
Cambridge Semantics' tools produce and consume a great deal of
xsd:string typed literals.
Lee
>
> - Steve
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 17:59:59 UTC