I was saying to someone the other day that it is bizarre and painful that you
can't get SPARQL result sets in RDF, or at least there isn't a standard
ontology for them.
But it looks like I was wrong.
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
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
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
Hi Hugh,
I think you disregarded the CONSTRUCT queries a bit to quickly. This is what
you use when you want to get back triples.
If you want back result columns you use SELECT. If you want describe to the
concept of result columns in RDF then you are
on your own.
Maybe if you explain what you
Thanks Jerven, you may well be right!
SELECT DISTINCT * WHERE
{ ?s foo:bar ?o }
would do.
And things like
SELECT DISTINCT * WHERE
{ ?v1 foo:bar ?o . ?v1 ?p1 ?v2 . ?v2 ?p2 ?v3 }
and then probably get back an identifier for each result, so that I can find
out what are the values of the ?p* and ?v*
