W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: RDF 2.0 Wishlist - Legal RDF which I can't SPARQL

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:40:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4C51BD04.6070508@epimorphics.com>
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
CC: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>, Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>


On 29/07/2010 6:22 PM, Paul Gearon wrote:
 > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Paul Gearon<gearon@ieee.org>  wrote:
 >
 > <snip/>
 >
 >> In a hack similar to the one I mentioned with FILTER, but you can 
always say:
 >>
 >> insert { graph<http://example.com/graph>  {
 >>   ?u  foo:Property  "something" } }
 >> { { select IRI("http://example.com/mylamefoafdocument`uri") as ?u {} } }

but it still isn't a legal IRI.

There are two levels here:

The syntax, that says:

IRI_REF	  ::=  	'<' ([^<>"{}|^`\]-[#x00-#x20])* '>'

but also the syntax rules in the URI RFC (now RFC 3986) including any 
scheme-specific rules.

Last time, IIRC DAWG decided not to copy over the full grammar for IRIs, 
but to put in a more general but smaller pattern.

For example, "[" "]" are only legal as delimiters for IPv6 addresses in 
the authority part.

	Andy

 >>
 >> But then I realized that this uses a non-standard constructor for
 >> IRIs! I should raise this as a possible function for SPARQL 1.1.
 >
 > I just realized that this *is* valid SPARQL 1.1. The documentation for
 > IRI() isn't defined everywhere yet (it has its own section, but
 > doesn't yet appear in the tables).
 >
 > BTW, I'm not saying that this is the solution. (All those curly braces
 > give me the shivers). But it is *a* solution.  :-)
 >
 > Regards,
 > Paul Gearon
 >
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 17:41:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:21 UTC