W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > September 2005

Re: SPARQL: Another dditorial comment on SPARQL Last Call WD

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:10:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4316EFA8.2050503@hp.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org



Ivan Herman wrote:
> Some hair splitting again on the editorial side.
> 
> In 2.8, RDF Collection, it simply says that (1 ?x 3) is an alternative for
> 
> _:b0  rdf:first  1 .
> _:b0  rdf:rest   _:b1 .
> _:b1  rdf:first  ?x .
> _:b1  rdf:rest   _:b2 .
> _:b2  rdf:first  3 .
> _:b2  rdf:rest   rdf:nil .
> 
> It may be worth adding (or reformulating the text) that a triple pattern:
> 
> :a :b (1 ?x 3).
> 
> is then *replaced* by the triple:
> 
> :a :b _:b0.
> 
> where _:b0 is the one above (ie, the (1 ?x 3) is not mechanically replaced by
> the stuff above, it would be syntactically incorrect because it would lead to a
> duplicated full stop...).
> 
> It may be obvious but I think it is worth making it clear.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 

Ivan,

Afetr changes based on your previous comments, the "RDF Collections" section 
says that

   (1 ?x 3) :p "w" .

is short for:

   _:b0  :p  "w" .
   _:b0  rdf:first  1 .
   _:b0  rdf:rest   _:b1 .
   _:b1  rdf:first  ?x .
   _:b1  rdf:rest   _:b2 .
   _:b2  rdf:first  3 .
   _:b2  rdf:rest   rdf:nil .

to avoid saying that the list is replaced by the triples (which would indeed be 
syntactically wrong).  It's not so much that any triple is *replaced* (the 
triples really are there) - it's about how they are written down.

Does "is short for" meet your comment?

	Andy
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:11:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT