- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 08:45:48 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 09:10 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 30/04/12 18:02, Steve Harris wrote: > > On 30 Apr 2012, at 13:27, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 30/04/12 13:12, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > >> > >>> This seems like a balance between consistency and convenience. It's > >>> grammatically distinguishable in LL/LALR(1) with this patch: > >>> > >>> -[29] DataBlock ::= Var* '{' ( '(' DataBlockValue* ')' | NIL )* '}' > >>> +[29] DataBlock ::= '(' Var* ')' '{' ( '(' DataBlockValue* ')' | NIL )* '}' > >>> | Var '{' DataBlockValue* '}' > >>> > >>> IMO, it actually adds some consistency by sticking parens around the > >>> var list. > >> > >> > >> Rest assured that the worked example is also a working example! I added the feature as an extension to ARQ and it parses OK (including for the GraphPatternNotTriples which is the more senstive-to-change area). > >> > >> (Speculative thoughts from here) > >> > >>> One problem with "DATA" is that SPARQL's data is RDF triples, not > >>> variable bindings. Practically, we may some day want to add premises > >>> like: > >> > >> Using the FROM clause would seem good here: > >> > >>> DATA { :Fido a :Dog } > >>> SELECT ?mammal { ?mammal a :Mammal } > >> > >> SELECT ?mammal { ?mammal a :Mammal } > >> FROM DATA { :Fido a :Dog } > >> > >> or > >> > >> SELECT ?mammal { ?mammal a :Mammal } > >> FROM { :Fido a :Dog } > > > > I agree with Eric, I think DATA is a bad choice of word here. > > > > I prefer BINDINGS to DATA - BINDINGS is more similar to BIND () than it is to DATA { … }, which should help people trying to learn. > > > > If we want to avoid strings starting lexically with BIND, then maybe VALUES? À la SQL. > > VALUES works for me. +1 > Just for completeness, we could use syntax and > splash out [*] on new delimiter tokens e.g. "{|" "|}" > > {| ?x <a> <b> <c> |} > > {| (?x ?y) > (<a> 123) > (<b> 456) > (<c> 789) > |} > > Andy > > [*] Sorry about that - to say it's raining here at the moment is > understatement. Just brainstorming: another angle is to think more in terms of a verb, saying what is being done with the bindings/data/values, like "INCLUDE" (or "INCLUDING") or "EXTEND" or "USE" or something like that. -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 12:46:00 UTC