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

Re: ACTION summary

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:43:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4B3264E3.2060209@thefigtrees.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/12/2009 11:59, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Has this ever been advocated or is it just speculation?
>>
>> What we have in the notes to this action is the following:
>>
>> "2009-11-02 23:14:05: [SteveH_]: this should probably do the same 
>> thing as CONSTRUCT, i.e. mint new bnodes for each solution"
> 
> Err, in context we have:
> ----------
> ACTION: Axel to followup with Chilleans re: not including sub-constructs 
> in FROM clauses ←
> 
> Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-133 - Followup with Chilleans re: not 
> including sub-constructs in FROM clauses [on Axel Polleres - due 
> 2009-11-09]. ←
> 
> 22:56:56 <LeeF> discussion that Axel seems to be the main - perhaps sole 
> - proponent of sub-constructs in FROM clauses in the WG
> 
> discussion that Axel seems to be the main - perhaps sole - proponent of 
> sub-constructs in FROM clauses in the WG ←
> 
> 23:03:41 <AxelPolleres> Lee: Would " SELECT ( _:b1 AS ?blank) ... " 
> solve Axel's use case?
> 
> Lee Feigenbaum: Would " SELECT ( _:b1 AS ?blank) ... " solve Axel's use 
> case? [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ]
> ----------
> 
>> I was thinking of converting it into an issue in the light of that we 
>> haven't got any other mechanism to mint
>> bnodes in subselects so far.
> 
> Sure - but do I take it you are advocating this ability?  No point 
> raising issues about things no one is advocating.  The issue is not 
> SELECT (_:b ...) but the underlying need?

This got briefly mentioned at the TC, but yes, if I understand correctly 
Axel has at least one FOAF-related use case (the details of which escape 
me at the moment) that relies on minting new blank nodes.

> I thought that would be done as part of TF-LIB as we have discussed 
> generators for RDF terms before :  BNODE(), URI() and LITERAL().  Inline 
> syntax _:b1 is the worst of all worlds because it has different meaning 
> in different places.

I think that's a very reasonable approach, personally.

Lee

> 
>     Andy
> 
>>
>> Axel
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 December 2009 18:44:41 GMT

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