You're right, that section does seem conclusive, at least insofar as SPARQL is concerned.
________________________________________ From: ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 10:19 AM To: dev@jena.apache.org Subject: Re: consistent blank id values from RDFConnection That's not how I understand: https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#BlankNodesInResults "Blank node labels are scoped to a result set (see "SPARQL Query Results XML Format" and "SPARQL 1.1 Query Results JSON Format") or, for the CONSTRUCT query form, the result graph." Multiple calls to a single graph => multiple queries => multiple result sets (or result graphs) => multiple scopes. ajs6f > On Dec 17, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Adam Jacobs <jacobs_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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! >
