W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > November 2011

Re: str() function should also accept blank node argument

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:31:36 +0000
Message-ID: <4EC51AC8.1090602@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>


On 02/11/11 13:50, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I only partly agree.  I do agree that there are work-arounds available,
> and one such work-around is to avoid the use of bnodes by skolemizing
> them on input, as you suggest.
>
> But it seems to me that if SPARQL is going to support bnodes, then it
> should support them just as it supports all other kinds of terms.  If
> SPARQL is *not* giving the same support to bnodes as it gives to all
> other terms, and the WG is encouraging users to avoid them and use
> skolemization instead, then in essence SPARQL has deprecated this
> feature of the language.  And as much as I dislike bnodes, I don't think
> we're ready to take that step.
>
> I appreciate the WG's time constraints and I would be okay with a WG
> decision to defer this to the next SPARQL release if the WG felt it
> would cause too much delay to address it now, but I do not agree that
> this functionality is not needed.  Bnodes should have the same level of
> support in SPARQL that all other RDF terms have.
>
> Thanks,
> David

The working group is capturing points as input for any future chartering 
process.

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Future_Work_Items

We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has been 
answered by sending a reply to this mailing list.

Andy
On behalf of the SPARQL WG
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:32:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:32:11 GMT