I can't reliably figure this: Does a query submitted with "CONSTRUCT *" always return a graph equivalent to a query submitted with "CONSTRUCT p", where p is the query pattern submitted? If not, why not (e.g. please show counter-example)? (If true, this greatly simplifies my implementation.) ... Partly answering my own question, I think this holds for simple query patterns, but doesn't obviously extend to more complex patterns involving optional or alternative elements. I'm trying to figure out a way to construct the result graph from just the variable binding results. Hmmm... maybe I can introduce some additional hidden variable bindings to track the optional/alternative choices matched ... Looking more closely at OPTIONAL and UNION, I notice that the following may give rise to different results: OPTIONAL a a UNION {} I mention this because in past work, I have implemented optional matching as a special case of alternative matching, where my alternative was a match-first-alternative rather than match-any-alternatives. (I'm not asking for any change here, just making an observation.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#ContactReceived on Friday, 8 April 2005 09:42:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT