Thanks Andy and Paul for your replies, and great news that SPARQL 1.1 is going to Last Call Working Draft now.
Thanks, Frank. Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote on 07/17/2012 11:18:07 AM: > From: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], > Date: 07/17/2012 11:19 AM > Subject: Re: SPARQL version supported by ARQ > Sent by: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > > On 17/07/12 15:53, Frank Budinsky wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > It seems that the latest ARQ drivers are not compatible with any W3C > > Working Draft, that is, the current SPARQL 1.1 working draft is version 5 > > (January 2012) which is using "BINDINGS", not "VALUES", but ARQ seems to be > > implementing an as-yet-unpublished editor draft 99. Does anybody know what > > the target date is for having a published W3C working draft 6? > > The semantics of property paths are different as well, although as they > are now back to what SARQ originally had prior to the working group, not > many people will have noticed. > > The WG has resolved (today) to publish SPARQL Query as a Last Call > Working Draft, subject to alignment with Turtle over the prefix grammar > rule that arose overnight. > > > Maybe this is a dumb question, but how is an ARQ user supposed to figure > > out the exact SPARQL syntax supported by a particular version of ARQ? > > Normally, ARQ implements whatever the W3C has made a recommendation. > The language extensions need to be explicitly requests (parse with a > different syntax), the default is strict SPARQL. > > ARQ does contain a strict SPARQL 1.0 parser separate from 1.1 > developments for complete compatibility. > > At the moment, SPARQL 1.1 Query is being finalised. ARQ has been > shipping with where ever the WG has got to at the time of publication. > Most people seem to want that. > > The BINDING->VALUES change has been publicly signalled on the sparql dev > list and the SPARQL comments list and is in the editors working draft. > > BINDING->VALUES and removal of {n} property paths are the only > incompatible changes. In fact, it's very rare for any incompatible > change to be made after a working draft publication. > > The technical answer is to look in the editors working draft because the > draft grammar and the ARQ grammar come from the same javacc file. > For the grammar, ARQ isn't using some implementation of the grammar, it > is using the grammar itself. It's how it's produced and gets checked. > > > Andy > Co-editor SPARQL Query. > > > > > Thanks, > > Frank. > > > >
