- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 07:38:47 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Good point. Perhaps FROM ENDPOINT.
-Alan
On Nov 4, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> 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 12:38:34 UTC