RE: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 1 June 2009 16:11
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: Re: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week
> 
> 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0009

> >
> > The issue about the results of FILTER functions, all algebra operators
> > and how to pass constraints into a matching as some engines might (and
> > do).
> >
> > Just saying "results" does not work.  That only applies to what comes
> > out in SPARQL results.
> >
> > We have three layers:
> >
> > 1 - Results formats (SPARQL XML Results or RDF graphs)
> > 2 - Algebra and FILTER functions
> > 3 - BGP matching.
> >
> > And also the query syntax (4).
> >
> > The text only covers (1) and (4).  Change the matching and the correct
> > behaviour at level 2 is undefined.
> 
> It sounds like the solution is to extend the wording about syntaxes to
> also cover interfaces between software sub-systems, and then perhaps
> give one of these as an example.   Would that do it?

The reason this case is special is that it is an interaction with the SPARQL spec - it's not a private API matter.

Therefore, I am suggesting explicit mention of extend BGP matching.

 Andy

> 
>     -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 15:43:39 UTC