Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns (bnodeRef)

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 19:37 +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
>  From the latest DAWG minutes
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/0384>:
[...]
> 
> b) we want back the ability to label bnodes in a query as "told-
> bnodes", in order to allow, e.g., for the use case "Publishing on the
> Web" in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/
> 2005JulSep/0430>; also in the SWBP WG there are several requests to  
> allow
> for this, for example
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0176>.

As we (re)discovered in the teleconference, the WG discussed
a relevant issue, bnodeRef, at some length...
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#bnodeRef

and decided, 2005-07-12, to postpone it.

In all the discussion of it that I have seen recently, the
designs go out of scope (by introducing yet another sort
of term beyond literals, URIs, bnodes, and ?variables
at the abstract syntax level) without a clear requirement
nor a compelling use case. The "Publishing on the Web"
use case does not have a critical mass of support.

We'll need new information in order to re-open bnodeRef
and consider designs.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E