- From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:54 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
hi all,
while looking at the current editor's draft about CONSTRUCT
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#prod-sparql-ConstructPattern
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
processing.
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
thanks
Alberto
-
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