Hi Wim, Jorge, Jeen, Marcelo, and Sebastian,
(Please note that this is not an official working group response to your
respective comments on property paths in the current SPARQL 1.1 Query
last call working draft.)
I want to thank you all again for your research, experiences,
suggestions, and comments on SPARQL 1.1 property paths. They've been
very valuable to the working group.
The group has spent some time in the past few weeks considering various
options in an attempt to address the implementation and evaluation
challenges that you have all raised while still respecting our group's
schedule, implementers' burdens, and the use cases we've identified for
property paths.
Today, we reached consensus within the group on an approach that we feel
addresses your concerns while still leaving room for implementation
experience going forward to inform additional design decisions in the
future.
We haven't yet worked this design into the query document, which is why
this isn't an official WG response to your comments. Yet before we go
ahead and publish a new Last call, we'd like to know if you support this
new design and if you believe that it does indeed address your comments.
The design is summarized in these two emails by Andy Seaborne:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0285.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0286.html
I'd very much appreciate it if you can take a look at this and let me
know what you think.
thanks,
Lee
