W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > June 2006

Re: [OK?] Re: Error definition

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:45:39 -0400
To: Faisal.Alkhateeb@inrialpes.fr
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8670C6BD.6A3D6F43-ON8525718E.004B6F6C-8525718E.004B976A@us.ibm.com>

Hello,

---
Please respond indicating whether you are or are not satisfied with
this response. If you are, you can help our issue tracking system by
prefixing the subject of your response with [CLOSED] (where this
subject has [OK?]).
---

> > > - Is the case that blanks are not allowed in the predicate position?
> > 
> > SPARQL does allow blank nodes in the predicate position of triple 
> > patterns. As per 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#BasicGraphPattern:
> > 
> > """
> > This definition also allows blank nodes in the predicate position.
> > """
> > 
> 
> I think the definition does not allow blank nodes in the predicate 
position.
> 

Whoops, I should read my responses more carefully =) You are, of course, 
correct, and the offending line of text that conflicts with the definition 
has been removed from the editor's draft in section 2.3 of:

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#BasicGraphPattern

thanks,
Lee
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:45:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT