On 9/21/13 2:38 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Many thanks, William, and for confirming so quickly. (And especially thanks for not telling me that CONSTRUCT does what I want!) I had suddenly got excited that RDF might actually be useable to represent something I wanted to represent, just like we tell other people :-) So it is all non-standard, as I suspected. Ah well, I'll go back to trying to work with XML stuff, instead of using my usual RDF tools :-( Very best Hugh
Hugh,There's nothing wrong with expecting an RDF based description of a SPARQL query result. It's something that should have been part of the deal, that's why we implemented it in Virtuoso.
Kingsley
On 21 Sep 2013, at 19:14, William Waites <[email protected]> wrote:Hi Hugh, You can get results in RDF if you use CONSTRUCT -- which is basically a special case of SELECT that returns 3-tuples and uses set semantics (does not allow duplicates), but I imagine that you are aware of this. Returning RDF for SELECT where the result set consists in n-tuples where n != 3 is difficult because there is no direct way to represent it. Also problematic is that there *is* a concept of order in SPARQL query results while there is not with RDF. Also the use of bag semantics allowing duplicates which also does not really work with RDF. These, again, could be kludged with reification, but that is not very elegant. So most SELECT results are not directly representable in RDF. Cheers, -w
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
