- From: Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:50:14 +0300
- To: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
I've come to a few conclusions regarding this debate and my own implementation. First of all, even though the SPARQL spec doesn't allow it, I have decided that support for blank nodes as graph names is mandatory. There seems to be a large number of things that directly or indirectly require this. For example, the TriX serialization format uses it. But, that is a separate thing from modelling the "unknown origin" as a named graph. And for that I somewhat clarified my thoughts. The triples without an origin in my case are not so much triples that are explicitly from an unknown origin, but triples for which the user of the API doesn't care to specify the origin. If there is possibility for blank nodes as graph names, the user may specify new blank node graph names as much as he likes, explicitly. So the prime requirement for these is simply the ease of use. And this means means that I need to have the graph, which holds all statements for which no origin was explicitly specified, selectable directly as: SELECT ?s ?p ?o WHERE { GRAPH <something> { ?s ?p ?o } } Now, according to the current SPARQL syntax, this pretty much means that I need to have the something be an IRI. What kind of an IRI, though, I don't know. A standard UUID URN, an OID URN, some normal HTTP URL from a purl.org namespace - or perhaps something entirely different, outside the scope of these. So, any thoughts on this? -- Naked
Received on Sunday, 17 September 2006 19:55:15 UTC