Snow, SPARQL, and SoemthingElseThatBeginsWithS
by Bijan Parsia
Yay! Hurray! My first snow as a resident of the UK!
(Though not my first snow in the UK.)
Today we had hail, rain, bright sun, and crazy snow….very nifty. And last week we had the “oh wow” winds. As in, “Oh wow, I have to downshift in order to turn the pedals on my bicycle.” Now, it is, of course, a testimony to my wimpdom that I could be stopped dead by a little, ok, a lot, of very fast wind. But still!
On the SPARQL front, I am participating in Yet Another SPARQL Tutorial, but this time it’s a full day and seems rather sensible. Hosted by ESWC 2007, and co-presented with a slew of good folks (Axel Polleres organized it, though some of the other folks were putting together submissions as well). I think it’ll be nice with lots of interesting information.
Coincidentally, Axel has put together a worked out SPARQL Rules proposal. This isn’t too shocking, especially given the presence of CONSTRUCT, but it’s very nice to have it worked out. Folk wisdom is ok, but details drive the devil away. It’s an interesting thing to experiment with.
My bit will be, as one might expect, SPARQL over more expressive entailment regimes (through OWL), plus, I hope, a bit about different ways of interpreting results.
On a slightly related note, Michael Kay discovers some value in XQueryX (the XML syntax for XQuery), albeit with the amusing twist that he finds manipulating XQueryX to be the proper domain of XSLT.
Kendall and I went a good chunk of the way to a SPARQLX (i.e., SPARQL XML format). Perhaps it’s time to revive it. The advantages seem to be the same: XSLT transformations to various legacy formats, the ability to indicate in advance (by a schema) what query feature you do or don’t accept (and thus better WSDL typing), better embedding in other XML formats, etc.
January 21st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hmm, a bit odd to post a comment to this weblog, but DC got its first snow all winter today, which is a bit of an odd coincidence.
As for SparqlX, yeah, I’d like to see that revived; but DAWG shouldn’t be distracted with it at this point, I think. Better that we should just make it a Member Submission and see what happens.
Actually, we could do something with it when we do something with SPARQL-DL?
January 21st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hmm, a bit odd to post a comment to this weblog, but DC got its first snow all winter today, which is a bit of an odd coincidence.
As for SparqlX, yeah, I’d like to see that revived; but DAWG shouldn’t be distracted with it at this point, I think. Better that we should just make it a Member Submission and see what happens.
Actually, we could do something with it when we do something with SPARQL-DL?
January 21st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hmm, a bit odd to post a comment to this weblog, but DC got its first snow all winter today, which is a bit of an odd coincidence.
As for SparqlX, yeah, I’d like to see that revived; but DAWG shouldn’t be distracted with it at this point, I think. Better that we should just make it a Member Submission and see what happens.
Actually, we could do something with it when we do something with SPARQL-DL?
January 21st, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Hmm, a bit odd to post a comment to this weblog, but DC got its first snow all winter today, which is a bit of an odd coincidence.
As for SparqlX, yeah, I’d like to see that revived; but DAWG shouldn’t be distracted with it at this point, I think. Better that we should just make it a Member Submission and see what happens.
Actually, we could do something with it when we do something with SPARQL-DL?
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
So, I heard. Our snow disappeared almost as soon as it happen. Sigh.
Re: What DAWG Does. Sure, clearly it’s not something for the group at this time, but either a member submission or a WG submission isn’t a bad idea. After all, they’ll be in CR at some point soon (we all hope :)), and even a rec track for such a thing wouldn’t be too hard given its parasitic nature.
On the other hand, I don’t know it needs to be a rec, or any other W3C document, rather than a nice spec.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
So, I heard. Our snow disappeared almost as soon as it happen. Sigh.
Re: What DAWG Does. Sure, clearly it’s not something for the group at this time, but either a member submission or a WG submission isn’t a bad idea. After all, they’ll be in CR at some point soon (we all hope :)), and even a rec track for such a thing wouldn’t be too hard given its parasitic nature.
On the other hand, I don’t know it needs to be a rec, or any other W3C document, rather than a nice spec.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
So, I heard. Our snow disappeared almost as soon as it happen. Sigh.
Re: What DAWG Does. Sure, clearly it’s not something for the group at this time, but either a member submission or a WG submission isn’t a bad idea. After all, they’ll be in CR at some point soon (we all hope :)), and even a rec track for such a thing wouldn’t be too hard given its parasitic nature.
On the other hand, I don’t know it needs to be a rec, or any other W3C document, rather than a nice spec.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 am
So, I heard. Our snow disappeared almost as soon as it happen. Sigh.
Re: What DAWG Does. Sure, clearly it’s not something for the group at this time, but either a member submission or a WG submission isn’t a bad idea. After all, they’ll be in CR at some point soon (we all hope :)), and even a rec track for such a thing wouldn’t be too hard given its parasitic nature.
On the other hand, I don’t know it needs to be a rec, or any other W3C document, rather than a nice spec.