- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:11:41 +0000
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 22/12/2009 11:59, Axel Polleres wrote: >> Has this ever been advocated or is it just speculation? > > What we have in the notes to this action is the following: > > "2009-11-02 23:14:05: [SteveH_]: this should probably do the same thing as CONSTRUCT, i.e. mint new bnodes for each solution" Err, in context we have: ---------- ACTION: Axel to followup with Chilleans re: not including sub-constructs in FROM clauses ← Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-133 - Followup with Chilleans re: not including sub-constructs in FROM clauses [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-11-09]. ← 22:56:56 <LeeF> discussion that Axel seems to be the main - perhaps sole - proponent of sub-constructs in FROM clauses in the WG discussion that Axel seems to be the main - perhaps sole - proponent of sub-constructs in FROM clauses in the WG ← 23:03:41 <AxelPolleres> Lee: Would " SELECT ( _:b1 AS ?blank) ... " solve Axel's use case? Lee Feigenbaum: Would " SELECT ( _:b1 AS ?blank) ... " solve Axel's use case? [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ---------- > I was thinking of converting it into an issue in the light of that we haven't got any other mechanism to mint > bnodes in subselects so far. Sure - but do I take it you are advocating this ability? No point raising issues about things no one is advocating. The issue is not SELECT (_:b ...) but the underlying need? I thought that would be done as part of TF-LIB as we have discussed generators for RDF terms before : BNODE(), URI() and LITERAL(). Inline syntax _:b1 is the worst of all worlds because it has different meaning in different places. Andy > > Axel
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 12:12:02 UTC