W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > November 2011

Re: SPARQL 1.1 - LeftJoin definition

From: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:20:26 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+8VvdwBxc1WXHPeiC0C31_TgKnHASmAc1gj8DjWONqX1sKL-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Eric - Thanks for the responses, that is helpful. I have another comment

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:

> > 4) Given that definition, can't the Filter be pushed down below the
> > LeftJoin? In this way LeftJoin could be simplified because it would no
> > longer need to take an expression.
> If I understand, that would remove compatible rows with failed
> filters, as opposed to retaining the row on the left side of the
> optional.

The way I am thinking of  it since it is a LeftJoin, the compatible rows
with failed filters would be removed from the right side, but since it is a
LeftJoin, the rows on the left would be retained (since that is what a
LeftJoin does).

Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 17:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:12 UTC