- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:40:20 +0100
- To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- CC: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>, Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 29/07/2010 6:22 PM, Paul Gearon wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Paul Gearon<gearon@ieee.org> wrote: > > <snip/> > >> In a hack similar to the one I mentioned with FILTER, but you can always say: >> >> insert { graph<http://example.com/graph> { >> ?u foo:Property "something" } } >> { { select IRI("http://example.com/mylamefoafdocument`uri") as ?u {} } } but it still isn't a legal IRI. There are two levels here: The syntax, that says: IRI_REF ::= '<' ([^<>"{}|^`\]-[#x00-#x20])* '>' but also the syntax rules in the URI RFC (now RFC 3986) including any scheme-specific rules. Last time, IIRC DAWG decided not to copy over the full grammar for IRIs, but to put in a more general but smaller pattern. For example, "[" "]" are only legal as delimiters for IPv6 addresses in the authority part. Andy >> >> But then I realized that this uses a non-standard constructor for >> IRIs! I should raise this as a possible function for SPARQL 1.1. > > I just realized that this *is* valid SPARQL 1.1. The documentation for > IRI() isn't defined everywhere yet (it has its own section, but > doesn't yet appear in the tables). > > BTW, I'm not saying that this is the solution. (All those curly braces > give me the shivers). But it is *a* solution. :-) > > Regards, > Paul Gearon >
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 17:41:10 UTC