As I understand it, right now the CONSTRUCT simply ignores any cases which would produce an illegal (non-RDF) instance. For example CONSTRUCT ex:a ?x ex:b WHERE ?y ex:foo ?x with a target graph ex:aa ex:foo "13"^^xsd:number . ex:aa ex:foo ex:c . will produce ex:a ex:c ex:b . and the illegal case (ex:a "13"^^xsd:number ex:b) will simply be ignored. Question: would it be worth having an error be generated in this kind of a case, but allowing the pattern to include a 'FORCE' option which overrides the error and produces the current behavior? I can imagine cases where finding an 'illegal' pattern might be something one would want to know about, rather than having it made invisible. Anyway, just an idea for consideration. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayesReceived on Sunday, 19 December 2004 06:40:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:42:00 GMT