Okay, certainly I don't want to document something that is both hidden and faulty! :grin:
I guess this is a general question (nothing to do with JSON in particular). How about a setting to enable any of the modes grouped in SyntaxLabels, for all parsing and output? Does that sound reasonable? In that case, the API seems a bit more complex, because it's something that could arise outside of ARQ, so maybe a static setting is better (than a Symbol in Contexts). ajs6f > On Dec 17, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > I was hoping we'd change it is because ATM it doesn't work properly and is a > bad design. > > On 17/12/17 16:11, ajs6f wrote: >>> 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 > > I prefer putting it, eventually, somewhere in advanced features. > > Andy > >> 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!
