RE: clearing up CONSTRUCT's capabilities

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Kendall Clark <>
> Date: 5 August 2005 17:19
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:45:32PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > Thanks for the text - I belive the definition of template covers
> > because it refers to triple patterns which do not need to have
> > variables but if adding the text makes it cleaer, I can do.
> As I said before, I believe the definition "covers" it, too, but it's
> an implication of two facts: (1) that graph templates are composed of
> triple patterns; and (2) that triple patterns can be ground. I think
> adding the text makes the useful conclusion more clear. I'd like it to
> be added. :>    
> In fact, I'm perfectly happy to see it added and see the example left
> as-is. 

Already added.


> > Not convinced by this example : firstly, the query pattern is about
> > finding names and adding a fixed one is a bit confusing.  Secondly,
> > first examplkes shouldn't be too overloaded.
> All these rules for examples that I'm only just learning! :>
> > I choose vcard out because, for a simple first example, I didn't
> > any blank node on output issues.  If vcard had an RDFS class, it
> > introduce that but there isn't one in the vocabulary.
> Neither of these seems relevant to the issue at hand, but -shrug-.
> I've followed the group's work actively since the beginning, and even
> contributed to some of it, and I had to sit and think very carefully,
> then verify my conclusion with one of the editors, about whether
> triples could appear in the graph template of CONSTRUCT.   
> Maybe this is because I'm dim-witted. It could also be because it's a
> bit subtle and should be spelled out explicitly. I think it's at least
> both of these. I've contributed text in two forms, but I leave it
> entirely to you how you'd like to explicitly state this feature. But I
> really would like it explicitly stated, in some form, in the spec
> itself. A test case alone is not sufficient, IMO.     
> > How about writing this up as a test case instead?  It could be a
> > worlkd" example based on your full RSS usage and the needs of a
> > first example don't apply.
> Yes, I said privately I would do this, and I will. But haven't done it
> yet. 
> Thanks,
> Kendall Clark

Received on Friday, 5 August 2005 16:23:21 UTC