W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2012

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

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:55:22 +0100
Message-ID: <5017D5BA.9020107@webr3.org>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2012-07-31, at 13:28, Nathan wrote:
>> 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?
> It would have to be at DB creation time (at least in 4/5store) as the optimisation goes right down into the storage engine.

Thanks for clarifying :)
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 12:56:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:18 UTC