Re: str() function should also accept blank node argument

Yes, I am satisfied with this resolution.

Thank you,
David

On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 14:31 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 16:37:40 UTC