Re: more on bnodes in predicate positions

Regarding
  ACTION: DanC find decision record for bnodes in predicate
I'm not able to confirm from records that the WG decided
to take bnodes out of the predicate slot.

As of 11 Oct, we were resolved...

"that the grammar in 1.501 addresses issue punctuationSyntax"
  --
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/att-0055/11-dawg-minutes.html#item04


And as of 1.501 the Verb production was VarOrBlankNodeOrIRIref.

As far as I can tell, the issue has remained closed since then.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#punctuationSyntax

The change to take BlankNode out of Verb was in...

Revision 1.629  2006/01/30 17:38:14  aseaborne
- Removed bnodes from triple pattern predciate position
  Definition and syntax

I don't see a relevant decision between 11 Oct and 30 Jan.
I could be missing it, but I'm looking pretty hard.

The WG approved the CR candidate (1.664 2006/03/21),
but as we're discussing, it's inconsistent about whether
bnodes are allowed in Verb or not.

Perhaps the WG approved a relevant test case? I'm not
sure how to search those easily.



On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 17:11 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > (In response to Andy's message at: 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0027 )
> > 
> > In addition to the referenced syntax tests being incorrect, this text in 
> > the draft should also be amended or struck:
> > 
> > """
> > This definition also allows blank nodes in the predicate position.
> > """
> > 
> > ( http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#defn_TriplePattern )
> > 
> > I'd suggest either removing it or changing it to
> > 
> > """
> > Note that this definition does not allow blank nodes in the predicate 
> > position.
> > """
> > 
> > 
> > Lee
> > 
> 
> Text removed - thanks for spotting that.
> 
> 	Andy
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 22:26:41 UTC