- From: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:35:05 +0000
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
On 4 Nov 2007, at 04:09, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> This is a particularly easy one, since it adds no new expressivity.
> The form
> below can be syntactically transformed into SPARQL as specified now
> by way
> of using the SPARQL protocol for the construct in the FROM.
> Since this is the only reasonable way we have to do federation now,
> within
> spec, it's more like adding friendly syntactic sugar.
As far as I can tell there's no way to tell that <http://example.com/sparql?
> is a SPARQL endpoint, rather that a graph served by a CGI script
with no arguments.
- Steve
> On 11/3/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> SELECT ?a ?b
>>> FROM ( CONSTRUCT { ?d <b> ?b }
>>> FROM < http://example.com/sparql?>
>>> WHERE { ?b <b> ?d } )
>>> WHERE { ?a <b> ?b }
>>
>>
>> Yes... the Data Access WG considered this sort of thing briefly;
>> we didn't see any particular reason not to do it but we...
>>
>> RESOLVED 2005-01-20: to postpone cascadedQueries; while federation
>> use
>> cases are interesting, the designs don't seem mature and the use
>> cases
>> are not urgent; with KendallC abstaining.
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#cascadedQueries
>>
>> I'm happy to see people playing around with it; I hope the
>> designs get mature soonish.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>
>>
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 12:35:28 UTC