Re: Blank Nodes and SPARQL

Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> yeah... I'm trying to figure out which you're asking for. I wonder
> if a test case clarifies.

...

>  SELECT ?MBOX
>   WHERE { _:l55c33 foaf:mbox ?MBOX. }.
>
> still has (?MBOX, <mailto:connolly@w3.org>) as a solution,
> even thought the bnode identifiers are different.
> Any piece of software that says that's not a solution
> is not implementing the semantics of SPARQL.
>

Yes, these are the semantics I was suggesting be changed.
BNodes are currently syntactic sugar for non-referencable variables (and
ugly sugar at that, in the case of '_:155c33'!).  This presents a
roadblock to any extension of sparql that would provide direct reference
to bnodes.

-Ron