W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Discussion on RDF compliance of SPARQL Construct

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:34:50 +0100
Cc: Arthur Keen <AKeen@algebraixdata.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E6A538CD-968A-47FF-9B78-9C5ED4980C0A@garlik.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
It's explicitly out of scope for the RDF WG too: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/rdf-wg-charter, section 3.

- Steve

On 2012-09-27, at 17:33, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> No, I don't think the RDF WG is considering that, which is one reason why it's out of scope for our group to consider allowing it. (We'd be saying that CONSTRUCT generates something that's not RDF -- something that doesn't even have a name, which is hard to specify)
> Lee
> On 9/27/2012 12:26 PM, Arthur Keen wrote:
>> Thanks very much for the pointer. 
>> FYI: I mentioned this discussion to our mathematicians (algebraists) the other day and to my complete surprise, they liked the idea of relaxing RDF compliance on SPARQL Construct, because 'it has nice mathematical properties.'       From a practical point of view, the only reason I can see for doing this kind of thing is when the graph created by the SPARQL Construct is being consumed by a function that has a more general graph logical model and has a use for the additional annotation on the literals, for example a general graph database, or a more general faceted browser  (e.g., annotating the literals with display parameters), etc.   Is the RDF WG actually considering relaxing this constraint on RDF?
>> Arthur
>>> It was on the -comments list.
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jul/0021.html
>>> Lee
>>> On 9/26/2012 7:01 PM, Arthur Keen wrote:
>>>> I am trying to locate the discussion a little while back about relaxing RDF compliance on SPARQL construct.  The requester wanted to be able to create triples in construct that did not comply with RDF, for example the rule on literals in the subject position.  I have looked through the issues and can't find it.   Would appreciate it if someone could point me to it.  
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Arthur

Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:35:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:07 UTC