Difference between revisions of "Future Work Items"

From SPARQL Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 19: Line 19:
 
* From Rob Vesse and others -- [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jun/0040.html dynamic function calls]
 
* From Rob Vesse and others -- [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jun/0040.html dynamic function calls]
 
* [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jun/0047.html David Booth: resolve ambiguities caused by implicit graph creation and explicit CREATE operation] -- the current working group has left the handling of empty graphs open; due to the existence of both graph-aware and non-graph-aware graph stores we didn't feel there was a sufficient basis for standardisation of either design (i.e., requiring the support of empty graphs or ignoring them). As a generic compromise, the current design allows graph stores to remove any empty graphs at any time, while still remaining compliant with the standard. A future working group may resolve this e.g. by making the distinction between graph-aware and non-graph-aware stores more explicit and standardizing respective behaviours in a stricter way.
 
* [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jun/0047.html David Booth: resolve ambiguities caused by implicit graph creation and explicit CREATE operation] -- the current working group has left the handling of empty graphs open; due to the existence of both graph-aware and non-graph-aware graph stores we didn't feel there was a sufficient basis for standardisation of either design (i.e., requiring the support of empty graphs or ignoring them). As a generic compromise, the current design allows graph stores to remove any empty graphs at any time, while still remaining compliant with the standard. A future working group may resolve this e.g. by making the distinction between graph-aware and non-graph-aware stores more explicit and standardizing respective behaviours in a stricter way.
 +
* [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Oct/0003.html Peter Waher] Consider implementation experience of specifying datasets for federated query.

Latest revision as of 15:09, 3 October 2012

The Working Group has cataloged suggestions for future work that may or may not be considered by future working groups. Inclusion in this list does not imply the working group endorses the idea. This list includes: