1) I can see Hugh's frustration that the RDF system is incomplete in a way. You tell everyone you have a model which can be used for anything and then make something which doesn't use it. What's wrong with this picture?
Standardising/using/adopting http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/result-set would solve that. (The file actually defines terms like http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/result-set#resultVariable without the ".n3") 2) Different (I think) from what you want Hugh, but something I have thought would be handy would b a CONSTRUCT * where it returns the sub graphs it matches as turtle, ideally without duplicates. This would be nice for lots of things, such as extracting a subset of a dataset. CONSTRUCT * WHERE { ?x name ?y; age ?a; ?p ?o.} FILTER { a > 18 } Tim On 2013-09 -23, at 07:03, Andy Seaborne wrote: > DAWG did at one time work with result sets encoded in RDF for the testing > work. > > As the WG progressed, it was clear that implementation of testing > was based on result set comparison, and an impl needed to grok the XML > results encoding anyway. Hence the need for the RDF form dwindled but it's > still there: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/result-set.n3 > > Apache Jena will still produce it if you ask it nicely. > > Andy > >
