Re: Discussion on RDF compliance of SPARQL Construct

No, I don't think the RDF WG is considering that, which is one reason 
why it's out of scope for our group to consider allowing it. (We'd be 
saying that CONSTRUCT generates something that's not RDF -- something 
that doesn't even have a name, which is hard to specify)

Lee

On 9/27/2012 12:26 PM, Arthur Keen wrote:
> 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
>>>
>