- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:06:29 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10/15/2011 08:35 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> SPARQL 1.2 will not solve anything I'm afraid. SPARQL 1.1 Query has
> gone as far as it can, except maybe a little extra syntactic sugar with
>
> { ?list rdf:rest*/rdf:first ?member }
>
> It's much better than handling Seqs.
>
> SPARQL Update can manuipuate lists but it's ugly:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0389.html
>
> The fundamental problem in SPARQL is that any order is lost; so this
> list access works for some cases, where the order does not matter.
well, as SPARQL 1.1 already allows
SELECT ?member
WHERE { :my-list rdf:rest{3}/rdf:first ?member }
I would *so* love SPARQL 1.2 for allowing
SELECT ?rank, ?member
WHERE { :my-list rdf:rest{?rank}/rdf:first ?member }
ORDER BY ?rank
pa
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 13:07:14 UTC