- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:31:36 +0000
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
On 02/11/11 13:50, David Booth wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I only partly agree. I do agree that there are work-arounds available, > and one such work-around is to avoid the use of bnodes by skolemizing > them on input, as you suggest. > > But it seems to me that if SPARQL is going to support bnodes, then it > should support them just as it supports all other kinds of terms. If > SPARQL is *not* giving the same support to bnodes as it gives to all > other terms, and the WG is encouraging users to avoid them and use > skolemization instead, then in essence SPARQL has deprecated this > feature of the language. And as much as I dislike bnodes, I don't think > we're ready to take that step. > > I appreciate the WG's time constraints and I would be okay with a WG > decision to defer this to the next SPARQL release if the WG felt it > would cause too much delay to address it now, but I do not agree that > this functionality is not needed. Bnodes should have the same level of > support in SPARQL that all other RDF terms have. > > Thanks, > David The working group is capturing points as input for any future chartering process. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Future_Work_Items We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list. Andy On behalf of the SPARQL WG
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:32:10 UTC