- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:40:11 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 05:18:52 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > Reviewing last call comment status, this one is (a) not connected > to an open issue, (b) not just editorial, and (c) hasn't > gotten much airtime. > > This request seems pretty reasonable: > > [[ > There are at least two ways to trim the results back down with just > syntax changes. The least intrusive change would be to just drop the > <unbound> tag, and have it be implicit with <binding name=".."/>. More > drastic is to just drop the entire <binding> tag when the variable is > unbound, since the information can be retrieved from the head. > ]] > -- SPARQL Results Format and Unbound Variables > http://www.w3.org/mid/42F4CEEB.5090306@umd.edu aka > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Aug/0043 > > > So how about we make <binding> elements for unbound variables > optional? Optional meaning may or may not be there I'm oposed to, but optional (w.r.t. the schema) meaning they must not be there if the variable is unbound would get my vote, though I believe it makes writing XSLT sheets harder. - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 07:40:43 UTC