Following up on my actions from F2F2, I realise I didn't take care of ACTION-133 yet.
Just sent the mail below on that one.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Axel Polleres <>
> Date: 7 December 2009 16:01:16 GMT
> To: Mauro Sanmartín <>, Claudio Gutierrez <>
> Subject: CONSTRUCT in FROM ... and issues for planned visits
> Hi Claudio, Mauro,
> We were having some internal discussions in the SPARQL WG about the sense or nonsense of allowing SPARQL-CONSTRUCT-subqueries 
> in FROM/FROM NAMED clauses, which is, if you remember, an issue that we also touched upon when we discussed in Chile in the course of talking about how queries from your ESWC paper [1] could be formulated in SPARQL1.1.
> See also discussion at the SPARQL f2f2:
> The discussion in the WG went mostly in the direction that most people thought that whatever you can do with CONSTRUCT subqueries in FROM, you can also do with "normal" SELECT subqueries. I am not 100% sure, whether that really works in all cases yet.
> Would you strongly argue for CONSTRUCT subqueries or agree with the view that resp. use cases  could be covered with sub-SELECTs? 
> Anyways, I think if you want CONSTRUCT subqueries in, we'd need to have some convincing use cases on the table sooner than later, due to the tight schedule the working group has, the general tenor is that if some feature is arguable/difficult then rather drop it than including it in this round. Please let me know your opinions!
> best,
> Axel
> 1. Mauro San Martín, Claudio Gutierrez: Representing, Querying and Transforming Social Networks with RDF/SPARQL. ESWC 2009: 293-307

Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 16:02:55 UTC