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: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:59:23 -0500
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0B7C939A-AB6B-4C2D-8FED-8BFD6627C0A2@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:

> 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.

My concern was with for a "CONSTRUCT {}" form, but Andy tells me that isn't under consideration. I'm happy to move forward with either "CONSTRUCT WHERE" or "CONSTRUCT *" forms. I have no real preference between these, but if there's support for them that's fine.

.greg
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 21:00:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT