- From: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:36:45 +0000
- To: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 05:23:46PM +0000, Nathan wrote:
> Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >On 01/03/11 16:41, Nathan wrote:
> >>actually ^ may be better.. such that
> >>
> >>:a :b :c .
> >>
> >>could be written as:
> >>
> >>:c ^:b :a .
> >>
> >>meaning
> >>
> >>:c [ owl:inverseOf :b ] :a .
> >
> >meaning there is a there is bnode in the predicate position.
> >
> >>
> >>meaning:
> >>
> >>:a :b :c .
> >>
> >
> >SPARQL has:
> >
> >:c ^:b :a .
> >
> >meaning
> >
> >:a :b :c
> >
> >reverses subject and object. The matching process really does swap
> >subject and object.
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypaths
>
> wouldn't that require subjects as literals?
>
>
Afaik, there is no restriction for subjects as literals in SPARQL (which explains why "abc" bif:contains "b" works, for example) - that's my biggest concern about the whole issue. Two W3C recommendations (SPARQL and RDF) are effectively contradicting each other. For example, you could generate an invalid RDF document with a perfectly valid SPARQL query (e.g. CONSTRUCT { ?name bif:contains "foo" } WHERE { ?a a foaf:Person ; foaf:name ?name . ?name bif:contains "foo" })
Best,
y
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:37:18 UTC