ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does?

Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

LD Patch

Raised by:

Opened on:

2014-08-18

Description:

SPARQL has a path expression language and LD-Patch has path expression
language. They have different expressiveness, but when they are
saying the same thing, we're probably agreed they should use the same
syntax.

It seems like the use of slash may be the same. For example, "start
with node <a> then follow the <p1> property twice, then the <p2>
property once".

In SPARQL that looks like:

<a> <p1>/<p1>/<p2>

in LD-Patch that looks like:

<a> /<p1>/<p1>/<p2>

The semantics are (arguably) the same; the syntax is extremely similar,
differing only in the leading slash.

So, are the semantics really the same -- in which case the syntax
should be aligned -- or are the semantics somehow importantly
different?

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: Slice semantics, and rdf:first and rdf:rest considered harmful Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2014-11-26)
2. Re: Slice semantics, and rdf:first and rdf:rest considered harmful Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-26)
3. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2014-11-26)
4. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-11-25)
5. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2014-11-25)
6. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2014-11-25)
7. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-25)
8. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2014-11-25)
9. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-25)
10. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2014-11-25)
11. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-24)
12. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-24)
13. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from andrei@w3.org on 2014-11-24)
14. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2014-11-24)
15. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-24)
16. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2014-11-24)
17. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2014-11-24)
18. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-24)
19. Re: Updated LD Patch specification (from sspeiche@gmail.com on 2014-11-24)
20. Updated LD Patch specification (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-21)
21. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-11-20)
22. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from andy@apache.org on 2014-08-23)
23. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-20)
24. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from andy@apache.org on 2014-08-20)
25. Re: [LD Patch] Links to alternatives (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-19)
26. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-08-19)
27. AUTO: Bart van Leeuwen is niet aanwezig / Bart van Leeuwen is out of the office. (returning 29-08-2014) (from Bart_van_Leeuwen@netage.nl on 2014-08-19)
28. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
29. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from andy@apache.org on 2014-08-18)
30. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
31. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from andy@apache.org on 2014-08-18)
32. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from henry.story@bblfish.net on 2014-08-18)
33. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
34. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
35. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from andy@apache.org on 2014-08-18)
36. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
37. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-08-18)
38. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from andy@apache.org on 2014-08-18)
39. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
40. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-08-18)
41. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
42. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-08-18)
43. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from sandro@w3.org on 2014-08-18)
44. Re: ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from alexandre@bertails.org on 2014-08-18)
45. ISSUE-100: Should ld-patch use a slash like sparql does, instead of as it currently does? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2014-08-18)

Related notes:

Display change log