Re: allow implicitly unbound variables in SPARQL results?

On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Jeen Broekstra wrote:

> There are still a number of possible reasons I can think of to stick
> with the last call design however:
>
>  1. It has been implemented already and changing it will break
>     existing tools (but hey, we're a working draft, what do you
>     expect?).
>  2. The collapsed form esp. will make the data structure more
>     irregular and therefore possibly harder to understand, esp. for
>     people with table/SQL background.
>
> I personally find neither reason particularly compelling, but I'd like
> to hear the WG's opinion on this, if any.

I agree, neither reason is compelling (and I'm not even sure I agree  
with them, but that's beside the point).

Cheers,
Kendall