Re: Proposed: SPARQL grammar is complete as-is

On 11/01/11 03:55, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>   I agree that the above "TABLE" syntax would work
> (though it would require special code when serializing subselects
> vs. top-level queries),

I don't understand that part - what special code would be needed?


Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 09:00:16 UTC