- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:43:47 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > 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? This got briefly mentioned at the TC, but yes, if I understand correctly Axel has at least one FOAF-related use case (the details of which escape me at the moment) that relies on minting new blank nodes. > 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. I think that's a very reasonable approach, personally. Lee > > Andy > >> >> Axel > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 December 2009 18:44:41 UTC