Re: Questions about Update 1.1

On 18 Oct 2009, at 17:27, Seaborne, Andy wrote:


> "Skolemize" might be a bit unfriendly (maybe a good idea given the  
> nature of the usage)
> I prefer not using a keyword of the language but only a custom  
> function form to emphasis the fact it's a non-core feature.  
> sparql:ref(?x) ?

Good point.

> May or may not apply to literals -- if it does, it returns the  
> literal.

Yep, well if it is defined as a skolem function then that would be  
correct behaviour, as I understand it.

sparql:ref is fine, but if this is the only way to delete bNodes in  
DELETE DATA then it might be a bit odd if either a) we don't say how  
you can do that, or b) the doc reference a WG note.

- Steve

Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 18:33:45 UTC