- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 01:39:54 +0100
- To: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
- Cc: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com, richard@cyganiak.de, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, sysbot+tracker@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5DB79DC1-8C01-4CA4-9B18-E530E707623A@garlik.com>
On 2011-04-01, at 16:45, Alex Hall wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> > Subject: Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:08:14 -0500 > > > 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 > > > Ah, now I see it. Tricky. > > The extra complexity and lack of uniformity is a strong point against > this syntax. > > peter > > I see your point here. The name 'TriplesNode' implies a production that generates a [node, triples] tuple, so the triples always get added to the enclosing BGP and the node can be added to a surrounding triple context if present. That is extra complexity, and doesn't allow you to write anything that you couldn't before. > > But it does allow you to write statements about a blank node without having to give that node a label, even if nothing else in the graph refers to that node. A common example from OWL: > > [ a owl:AllDifferent; owl:distinctMembers (:a :b :c) ] . I do think that we should add this form, but not for this reason, what's wrong with [] a owl:AllDifferent; owl:distinctMembers (:a :b :c) . In this case? - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2011 00:40:35 UTC