Re: construct *

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.

	Andy


> (Not sure if this is even legal.)
> 
> -Mike