W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: (CONSTRUCT WHERE) Re: Proposed: SPARQL grammar is complete as-is

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:27:42 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6D82114E-10F4-4B37-8FB4-C19262F3EA10@garlik.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On 2011-01-11, at 14:17, Axel Polleres wrote:

> Dear all,
> Still catching up, sigh... 
> From the discussion/mail about CONSTRUCT WHERE
>> we discussed this in the TelCo today and there was little/no support for that shortcut in a strawpoll, in fact, greg had some concerns 
>> that it would rather raise new questions (e.g. since WHERE is normally optional this would raise confusion, etc.). 
>> My current suggestion, if you don't insist on that shortcut, or nobody else jumps on it, I would thus be to close the ACTION without further action and leave this shortcut out. 
> The fact only that it's doable in the grammar doesn't mitigate Greg's concern, does it? His problem was about the obligatory WHERE (which isn't obligatory in a normal COSNTRUCT query... given that, I am frankly a bit hesitant to re-open this disscussion and would prefer to leave it with the conclusion we reached when closing the related action.

It's for commonality with DELETE WHERE, and WHERE is not optional in DELETE WHERE.

If that causes confusion then we shouldn't do it.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  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 Tuesday, 11 January 2011 16:28:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC