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

Re: construct *

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:12:38 +0000
Message-ID: <42444686.9000208@hp.com>
To: "Personick, Michael R." <MICHAEL.R.PERSONICK@saic.com>
Cc: '''RDF Data Access Working Group ' ' ' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>, "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>

Personick, Michael R. wrote:
> Andy,
> Regarding "construct *" being taken out, we do use "construct *" for all of
> our queries, but only because we might be formulating queries incorrectly.
> It's nice for lazy programmers such as myself that tend to want to construct
> a subgraph using the same triple patterns used for matching. So if I only
> need to match on one triple pattern but I want to know everything about the
> resources that satisfy the query, I'll write something like this:
> construct *
> where (?resource <myns:attribute> "Value")
>       (?resource ?p ?o)
> Perhaps I should be doing something like this? 
> construct (?resource ?p ?o)
> where (?resource <myns:attribute> "Value")

The syntax in the published working drafts has been superceeded so now
triples are written in an Turtle or N3-like form.  <> round qnames was not
legal - it's an old RDQL-ism - as it confuses URI scheme name with a prefix.

prefix myns: <http://.....>
construct { ?resource myns:attribute "Value" }
where { ?resource myns:attribute "Value" }

In the simple cases, "construct *" was the extraction operation you want.
It's just that it does not extend as queries become more complex.


> (Not sure if this is even legal.)
> -Mike
Received on Friday, 25 March 2005 17:13:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:46 UTC