- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:56:24 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I have added this to the editors working draft.
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#constructWhere
Andy
On 11/01/11 20:59, Gregory Williams wrote:
> 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 Monday, 17 January 2011 15:57:05 UTC