- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:37:12 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
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