- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:08:14 +0100
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: richard@cyganiak.de, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, sysbot+tracker@w3.org
On 01/04/11 15:47, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Richard Cyganiak<richard@cyganiak.de> > Subject: Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:01:11 -0500 > >> On 31 Mar 2011, at 17:57, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> I don't see any inconsistency. You appear to want to move something >>> that is a node and put it in a place where a triple is expected? >> >> [<c> <d> ] is not a node. It is three nodes. > > [<c> <d> ] is indeed a single node, just like 5+7 is *one* integer, not > three. I don't expect to be able to use 5+7 as the single argument of > function that has arity two, or three. I similarly don't expect to be > able to use the blank node resulting from [<c> <d> ] in a place that > expects a triple. > >>> Why should that work? >> >> Why shouldn't it? It works in N3 and SPARQL. > > I rest my case. [Note, no smiley here, particularly for N3.] > > As far as I can see neither > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ > nor > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ > allow this construction as a triple anyway. So I don't see how it works > in SPARQL. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#grammar [21] TriplesBlock ::= TriplesSameSubject ( '.' TriplesBlock? )? [32] TriplesSameSubject ::= VarOrTerm PropertyListNotEmpty | TriplesNode PropertyList [34] PropertyList ::= PropertyListNotEmpty? [38] TriplesNode ::= Collection | BlankNodePropertyList [39] BlankNodePropertyList ::= '[' PropertyListNotEmpty ']' A lot of this is to exclude "[] ." http://www.sparql.org/query-validator.html ==> http://www.sparql.org/query-validator?query=PREFIX+%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fexample%2F%3E%0D%0A%0D%0ASELECT+%3Fbook+%3Ftitle%0D%0AWHERE%0D%0A+++{+[+%3Ap+123+]+}%0D%0A&languageSyntax=SPARQL&outputFormat=sparql&linenumbers=true Andy > >>> If this change is made, then constructions should also be so promotable. >> >> What is a construction? > > Sorry, I meant to say "collection", i.e., a list. > >> Richard > > peter >
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 15:09:15 UTC