Re: Proposed: SPARQL grammar is complete as-is from Andy Seaborne on 2011-01-11 (public-rdf-dawg@w3.org from January to March 2011)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:59:36 +0000
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D2C1BF8.5020708@epimorphics.com>

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?

 Andy

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