Re: in...of syntax Re: Turtle Last Call: Request for Review

Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2012-07-31, at 02:36, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
>> On 07/30/2012 06:37 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> BUt surely IF this is a good idea and worth having, which Im assuming it is, then the longer we wait, the more problems there will be with deployed systems out there which don't support it. Kicking the can down the road is not a good way to handle problems of legacy inertia.
>>>>
>>> Your argument would apply to literals-as-subjects as well; it's largely a syntax restriction.  If that's going to happen, it isn't in this WG (by charter), so why not make the changes in one step, not in multiple steps?
>> If literals-as-subject were primarily a matter of syntax, or were seen as inevitable, I don't think they'd have been ruled out by the charter.    I understand the reasons were mostly about data structures and implementation techniques, but I wasn't paying close attention to the technical content, so perhaps I misunderstood.
> 
> I think that the reason users don't try it is because of the syntax restriction, the reason engines don't (on the whole) support it is more due to the legacy of getting on for 15 years worth of software, research and publications.
> 
> Knowing the that subject can only be a URI or bNode is a useful optimisation for many SPARQL engines.

wild idea and probably way off course - but what if there was some kind 
of "EXTENDED MODE" keyword for sparql queries that let the engine know 
to expect literals as subjects and other such things - would an approach 
like that allow the engines to keep their optimizations most of the 
time, and skip them when demanded?

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 12:29:23 UTC