Re: (CONSTRUCT WHERE) Re: Proposed: SPARQL grammar is complete as-is

On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:

> The fact only that it's doable in the grammar doesn't mitigate Greg's concern, does it? His problem was about the obligatory WHERE (which isn't obligatory in a normal COSNTRUCT query... given that, I am frankly a bit hesitant to re-open this disscussion and would prefer to leave it with the conclusion we reached when closing the related action.

My concern was with for a "CONSTRUCT {}" form, but Andy tells me that isn't under consideration. I'm happy to move forward with either "CONSTRUCT WHERE" or "CONSTRUCT *" forms. I have no real preference between these, but if there's support for them that's fine.

.greg

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 21:00:53 UTC