- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:31:18 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 29 Oct 2009, at 09:45, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >> -----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. Sorry, I can't find any offhand. I had a look in my mail history, but I think the mentions I've seen were on the 4store IRC channel. >> 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. Yes, indeed. It would be tricky to specify in that respect. - 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 17:31:50 UTC