W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2005

about the CONSTRUCT productions

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:54 +0100
Message-Id: <1F0DE882-6E1B-11D9-A9EC-0011242E4018@asemantics.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

hi all,

while looking at the current editor's draft about CONSTRUCT


it seems the production allows to have "blocks" by using braces, in 
addition to simple sequences of triple-patterns:

[13]   ConstructPattern   ::=   ConstructElement+
[14]   ConstructElement   ::=   TriplePattern | '{' ConstructPattern '}'

while I added simple TriplePattern and '{' ConstructPattern '}' blocks 
to our CONSTRUCT DAWG testbed, I am not so convinced we need blocks at 
that level - which might unnecessarily complicate the whole parsing and 

Is there any particular reason to have the '{' ConstructPattern '}' 
block syntax, a part being more homogenous with the rest of the 
grammar? (perhaps if we would have bNodes _:foo scoped to the block it 
might make some sense)

Why not simplify ConstructPattern to:

[13]   ConstructPattern   ::=   TriplePattern+


Any explanation is appreciated



Alberto Reggiori, Senior Partner, R&D @Semantics S.R.L.
www.asemantics.com Milan Office
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 15:17:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:33 UTC