- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:12:05 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 2012-05-01, at 09:10, 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.
>
> 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)
> |}
Dear god no :)
Incidentally, are we going to use VALUES everywhere (assuming no-one hates it), or stick with BINDINGS when it's tacked on the end? I'm not sure if that's been made clear.
- Steve
--
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 13:12:48 UTC