RE: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week

I am looking for explicit text that covers the use of SPARQL extended matching [3] but the draft does not include any text that refers to, only to SPARQL syntax and SPARQL results.

[1] option 2 would cover it.  Section 4 is a tolerable place to put it tough not ideal.

The response in [2] did mention  "queries, bindings, and results" which is not very precise but at least covers the right area.  However, I now can't find any mention of that text in the current .../PlainLiteral draft.

Section 4 says
"in syntaxes for RDF graphs and for SPARQL"
"do not occur in syntaxes for RDF graphs, nor in syntaxes for SPARQL."

This is SPARQL syntax (the query string), not the matching (the output of the matching step).  Because rdf:PlainLiteral covers a non-datatype aspect, it need to be clear that bindings from BGP extended matching MUST be in existing forms.

This also does not cover it:
"in existing syntaxes for RDF graphs and SPARQL results."

We are not talking just about SPARQL XML results format (which should be covered) but about how the extended matching fits into existing implementations and how bindings flow from one BGP matching to another in the same query, possibly where the BGP matching are under different entailment regimes.  Applying to the extended matching would automatically include SPARQL XML results although it is good to call those out anyway, as the draft does (may be written by a non-SPARQL engine).

 Andy


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0229.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0230.html

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#sparqlBGPExtend


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lee Feigenbaum
> Sent: 1 June 2009 02:37
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: team-sparql-chairs@w3.org; team-rif-chairs@w3.org; team-owl-
> chairs@w3.org; public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: Re: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week
> 
> Sandro,
> 
> In general, the WG has seemed willing to follow the advice of AndyS and
> EricP with respect to this issue, as they've been the most swapped in on
> it. If Andy and Eric are able to review the text between now and Tuesday
> and are satisfied with it, I'm confident that the WG will be satisfied
> as well. We'll have no problem allocating teleconference time on Tuesday
> for the discussion.
> 
> If Andy or Eric can't review by Tuesday or feel that the current
> approach needs further changes, I'm also happy to try to resolve on our
> mailing list before the end of this week, but I'd like at least a day or
> two in "mailing list time" for others to be able to chime in. (In
> particular, Steve Harris and myself have been swapped in on this at
> times.)
> 
> Lee
> 
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > Do you think SPARQL-WG can confirm this week that the current text of
> > rdf:PlainLiteral
> >
> >     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral
> >
> > is satisfactory?  The introduction and section 4, as well as the title
> > and abstract have been entirely re-written in response to your LC
> > comment.  The new text is less than a page, though, and should be easy
> > to review.  My sense from discussions on the public-rdf-text mailing
> > list is that the current text is *probably* acceptable to everyone
> > (while not yet perfect, I'm sure).
> >
> > If it's not approved this week, it probably means a lot more work for
> > several people (like me), since it will probably get out of sync with
> > the other OWL documents.  (Depending on the scheduling of the
> transition
> > meeting, which is not yet determined, it might be possible to slip one
> > more week and not get out of sync.)
> >
> >      -- Sandro
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 14:06:32 UTC