W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@champin.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:55:52 +0000
Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E9EC8AD.9030005@champin.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 10/15/2011 08:35 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> SPARQL 1.2 will not solve anything I'm afraid.  SPARQL 1.1 Query has 
> gone as far as it can, except maybe a little extra syntactic sugar with
> 
> { ?list rdf:rest*/rdf:first ?member }
> 
> It's much better than handling Seqs.
> 
> SPARQL Update can manuipuate lists but it's ugly:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0389.html
> 
> The fundamental problem in SPARQL is that any order is lost; so this 
> list access works for some cases, where the order does not matter.

well, as SPARQL 1.1 already allows

 SELECT ?member
 WHERE { :my-list rdf:rest{3}/rdf:first ?member }

I would *so* love SPARQL 1.2 for allowing

 SELECT ?rank, ?member
 WHERE { :my-list rdf:rest{?rank}/rdf:first ?member }
 ORDER BY ?rank

pa



Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 16:22:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT