- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:52:40 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com> wrote:
>
<snip/>
> For the record, we could change UNION to allow {}-less LHS
>
> A chain of UNIONs would be
>
> pattern UNION { pattern } UNION { pattern }
>
> This has no effect on SPARQL 1.0 style queries.
>
> { pattern } UNION { pattern } UNION { pattern }
>
> is still legal and the same semantics. It's just a tweak to the grammar -
> the same AST and same algebra would result.
I like this change. Indeed, It would have been if it had been
specified that way in the first place.
Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 15:53:12 UTC