W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: First (rough) F2F agenda

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:31:18 -0400
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <284CF49F-AC60-40B3-B2C7-6F2015A4EDE8@garlik.com>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
On 29 Oct 2009, at 09:45, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steve Harris
>> Sent: 24 October 2009 09:05
>> To: Axel Polleres
>> Cc: SPARQL Working Group
>> Subject: Re: First (rough) F2F agenda
>>
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2009, at 17:10, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I put a first *rough* agenda for F2F2 online at
>>>
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-F2F2
>>
>> I would like to see a discussion of INTO / GRAPH in day 2. Even if
>> it's just to get an idea of people's enthusiasm in various  
>> directions.
>> It also relates to CONSTRUCT, as I've seen many requests
>
> (Minor:) Do you have pointers to concrete requests?  I'd like to  
> understand the whole context.

Sorry, I can't find any offhand. I had a look in my mail history, but  
I think the mentions I've seen were on the 4store IRC channel.

>> for a
>> CONSTRUCT { GRAPH ... } operation from users and that would be a
>> natural extension.
>
> Seems sensible.
>
> The barrier to doing this is not SPARQL itself but the lack of a  
> standard serialization for the output of named graph CONSTRUCT.

Yes, indeed. It would be tricky to specify in that respect.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2009 17:31:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT