- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:03:07 +0200
- To: franconi@inf.unibz.it
- Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, connolly@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
[...]
>>>> I should *not* get the bnode coming from the redundant
>>>> triple, but simply {<http://example.org/book/book1>}.
>>>
>>> Otoh, for
>>>
>>> CONSTRUCT { ?x dc:title "SPARQL" }
>>> WHERE { ?x dc:title "SPARQL" }
>>>
>>> I actually get
>>>
>>> <http://example.org/book/book1> dc:title "SPARQL".
>>> _:b_0_ dc:title "SPARQL".
>>>
>>> which I assume to be fine, no?
>>
>> The result form shouldn't affect the (number of) results
>> unless there's something expicit in the form which does that
>> (which I don't think is true for construct). At least,
>> that's what I would expect!
>
> Indeed. I expect no bnode in this case too, independently on
> the type of query, since the answer should be the same as the
> one with the dataset without the bnode.
[[
The CONSTRUCT result form returns a single RDF graph
specified by a graph template. The result is an RDF
graph formed by taking each query solution in the
solution sequence, substituting for the variables
into the graph template and combining the triples
into a single RDF graph by set union.
]]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#construct
and
###
<http://example.org/book/book1> dc:title "SPARQL".
_:b_0_ dc:title "SPARQL".
###
is a single RDF graph and a single result and I don't
see any issue wrt to bnodes or minimality in it;
what is the issue in this case?
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 08:03:34 UTC