Re: Fwd: CONSTRUCTing illegal triples should be optional

I agree with this.

Lee

On 7/20/2012 1:45 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> -1
>
> SPARQL is defined as CONSTRUCTing RDF graphs.
>
> If an implementation wishes to deviate from that, fine - but it is not 
> compliant.
>
> SPARQL is defined for sending graphs over the wire - that is all.
>
>     Andy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: CONSTRUCTing illegal triples should be optional
> Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:19:26 +0000
> Resent-From: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:18:57 -0400
> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> To: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
>
> Regarding this:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#construct
> [[
> If any such instantiation produces a triple containing an unbound
> variable or an illegal RDF construct, such as a literal in subject or
> predicate position, then that triple is not included in the output RDF
> graph.
> ]]
>
> This really bothers me, because: (a) it unnecessarily couples SPARQL to
> a controversial decision in the RDF WG that may well change in the
> future, i.e., the prohibition against literals as subjects; and (b) it
> forces a conforming implementation to perform checks that its user may
> not want or need.
>
> If a user chooses to generate invalid RDF then that is his/her business.
> The SPARQL spec should not prohibit it.  If a particular implementation
> offers the feature of performing this check, then that is fine. But it
> is unnecessarily draconian to require all implementations to do it.
>
> I suggest changing the above to:
> [[
> If any such instantiation produces a triple containing an unbound
> variable then that triple MUST NOT be included in the output RDF graph.
> Otherwise, if any such instantiation produces a triple containing any
> illegal RDF construct, such as a literal in subject or predicate
> position, then that triple MAY be excluded from the output RDF graph.
> ]]
>
>

Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 18:00:58 UTC