W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: solution modifiers & construct/describe

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:04:35 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050627190435.GA6909@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 07:54:54PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> SELECT and CONSTRUCT aren't so very different:

Hmm, really? Does CONSTRUCT really return an RDF graph? I simply don't
understand the point of saying that you want an RDF graph ordered by
descending ?hits order. There's no sense, as I understand these things, of
ordering triples in an RDF graph.

(I can see the point of limit, however.)

And DESCRIBE seems even worse, actually. It's *so* unconstrained
semantically in the spec (by design, of course) that it has the problems of
construct re: ordering, but has other problems, IMO, re: limit. If you have
no idea what you will get back from DESCRIBE, what sense does it make to say
you want those unknown results ordered, limited, or offset?

I think at the very least the interaction of the SMs with DESCRIBE &
CONSTRUCT needs to be spelled out very explicitly in the spec. I further
think some of the SMs should be restricted w/r/t some query forms.

Kendall
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 19:05:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT