W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Another attempt...

From: Andrew Newman <andrewfnewman@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:39:22 +1000
Message-ID: <2db5a5c40803181739x1f510c9bl6507cbcb5dbbebc2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard Newman" <rnewman@twinql.com>
Cc: andy.seaborne@hp.com, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "Arjohn Kampman" <arjohn.kampman@aduna-software.com>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>

On 19/03/2008, Richard Newman <rnewman@twinql.com> wrote:
> I think the DAWG is trying to arm you with enough definitions for you
>  to phrase an objection using the terms defined in the spec.
>
>  The DAWG, and other implementors on the list, have plenty of
>  experience with SPARQL; you will have much better luck if you can
>  explain an objection as "I think these SPARQL algebra operators should
>  work this way"... or, better yet, provide a test case or two.
>

Okay, so here's an test case that currently ends with an
OutOfMemoryException in SPARQLer and Twinkle:
SELECT ?x
WHERE {
  {} UNION
        {
           {} UNION {}
        }
      }

I'm not sure why it's happening - but it's obviously being evaluated
different to my previous example (without the extra level of curly
braces) and it should be trivial to work out.
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 00:39:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 March 2008 00:40:00 GMT