Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)

On 10/15/2011 08:35 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> SPARQL 1.2 will not solve anything I'm afraid.  SPARQL 1.1 Query has 
> gone as far as it can, except maybe a little extra syntactic sugar with
> 
> { ?list rdf:rest*/rdf:first ?member }
> 
> It's much better than handling Seqs.
> 
> SPARQL Update can manuipuate lists but it's ugly:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0389.html
> 
> The fundamental problem in SPARQL is that any order is lost; so this 
> list access works for some cases, where the order does not matter.

well, as SPARQL 1.1 already allows

 SELECT ?member
 WHERE { :my-list rdf:rest{3}/rdf:first ?member }

I would *so* love SPARQL 1.2 for allowing

 SELECT ?rank, ?member
 WHERE { :my-list rdf:rest{?rank}/rdf:first ?member }
 ORDER BY ?rank

pa