- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:45:17 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steve Harris > Sent: 24 October 2009 09:05 > To: Axel Polleres > Cc: SPARQL Working Group > Subject: Re: First (rough) F2F agenda > > > On 23 Oct 2009, at 17:10, Axel Polleres wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I put a first *rough* agenda for F2F2 online at > > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-F2F2 > > I would like to see a discussion of INTO / GRAPH in day 2. Even if > it's just to get an idea of people's enthusiasm in various directions. > It also relates to CONSTRUCT, as I've seen many requests (Minor:) Do you have pointers to concrete requests? I'd like to understand the whole context. > for a > CONSTRUCT { GRAPH ... } operation from users and that would be a > natural extension. Seems sensible. The barrier to doing this is not SPARQL itself but the lack of a standard serialization for the output of named graph CONSTRUCT. SPARQL/Data anyone? :-) Andy > > - Steve > > -- > Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited > 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK > +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ > Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 > Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 > 9AD >
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2009 13:46:44 UTC