My understanding is there's nothing wrong with maintaining labels among multiple calls to a single graph. The danger would be the risk of maintaining labels among calls to multiple graphs. At least, that's what I get out of this SO answer: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44477876/grouping-by-blank-nodes/44498034#44498034
________________________________________ From: ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 10:11 AM To: dev@jena.apache.org Subject: Re: consistent blank id values from RDFConnection > On Dec 17, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Why would it be dangerous? As I wrote: >>> (in the sense in which you used the phrase "dubious in terms of spec >>> compliance") It might confuse people into thinking that maintaining bnode labeling is a normal part of using SPARQL, when it isn't-- it's something extra that Jena provides. If there's no reason this is an undocumented feature, I'm going to document it at: https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/app_api.html ajs6f > On Dec 17, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > Why would it be dangerous? > > On 17/12/17 15:46, ajs6f wrote: >> That is useful, and it's undocumented. Is that because it is dangerous (in >> the sense in which you used the phrase "dubious in terms of spec >> compliance") or just because we never have documented it? >> ajs6f >>> On Dec 17, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> ARQ.enableBlankNodeResultLabels() >>> >>> On 17/12/17 15:39, ajs6f wrote: >>>> Where? I found nothing documented. >>>> ajs6f >>>>> On Dec 17, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 17/12/17 15:19, ajs6f wrote: >>>>>> Claude-- I'm looking at RDFConnection, but it's an interface. I think >>>>>> you mean around L220 of JSONInput itself, right? >>>>>> It looks like SyntaxLabels has some LabelToNode factory methods that >>>>>> might fit the bill, like createNodeToLabelAsGiven(), but JSONInput >>>>>> doesn't offer any way to select which method to use. At L195 it uses >>>>>> SyntaxLabels.createLabelToNode(). >>>>>> We could thread such a mapping choice all the way through the call >>>>>> stack, but that seems a bit difficult to me. Maybe we could introduce a >>>>>> Context setting for this purpose? >>>>> >>>>> They already exist!
