- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:48:59 +0100
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Andy wrote:
[...]
>
> After these areas, Jos has should how optionals can map to N3 but I find
the
> idioms necessary opaque and don't think there is sufficient value in a
common
> syntax when the user has to use some unnatural way of writing queries.
I now think that
SELECT ?name ?mbox
WHERE
(?person foaf:name ?name)
[ (?person foaf:mbox ?mbox) ]
should have been written as
[]
q:select {(?name ?mbox) a q:Answer};
q:where {?person foaf:name ?name.
?person foaf:mbox ?mbox}.
[]
q:select {(?name q:unknown) a q:Answer};
q:where {?person foaf:name ?name;
?person @not foaf:mbox ?mbox}.
but that @not is not yet existing and is
better to avoid as it assumes closed world
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 09:49:38 UTC