Re: Discussion on RDF compliance of SPARQL Construct

On 09/27/2012 12:34 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
> It's explicitly out of scope for the RDF WG too: 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/rdf-wg-charter, section 3.
>

And if you want to know why, read some of the threads in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jun/ and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/

      -- Sandro

> - Steve
>
> On 2012-09-27, at 17:33, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Steve Harris, CTO
> Garlik, a part of Experian
> +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
> 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
>