Re: Discussion on RDF compliance of SPARQL Construct

Thanks very much for the pointer.

FYI: I mentioned this discussion to our mathematicians (algebraists) the other day and to my complete surprise, they liked the idea of relaxing RDF compliance on SPARQL Construct, because 'it has nice mathematical properties.'       From a practical point of view, the only reason I can see for doing this kind of thing is when the graph created by the SPARQL Construct is being consumed by a function that has a more general graph logical model and has a use for the additional annotation on the literals, for example a general graph database, or a more general faceted browser  (e.g., annotating the literals with display parameters), etc.   Is the RDF WG actually considering relaxing this constraint on RDF?

Arthur

It was on the -comments list.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jul/0021.html

Lee

On 9/26/2012 7:01 PM, Arthur Keen wrote:
I am trying to locate the discussion a little while back about relaxing RDF compliance on SPARQL construct.  The requester wanted to be able to create triples in construct that did not comply with RDF, for example the rule on literals in the subject position.  I have looked through the issues and can't find it.   Would appreciate it if someone could point me to it.

Thanks
Arthur