W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: disjunction implementation

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:30:16 -0500
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Message-Id: <1087306215.21030.1881.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 08:15, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:00:46PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 22:38, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > > I'm a dork. I sent out an optional arcs impelementation. I was supposed
> > > to send disjunction implementation.
> > 
> > Specifically, w.r.t. 3.4 Subgraph Results
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20040602/#r3.4

[...]

>  If you specify an output mode like RDFXML, you'll get a
> graph with all of those statements mushed together.
> 
>  homer:/home/eric$ ./union-alg.sh -sClass n3
> @prefix : <http://example.org/n#>
> A1 p2 C .
> A2 p3 D .
> A3 p2 C ;
>    p3 D .

OK, that's what I was looking for.

Hmm... now that I think about it, I guess that
design does work. The results are, in a way, not very
interesting: the client may have a hard problem
figuring out what ?n matched... they basically
have to do the query again. But if they don't
want "subgraph results" they shouldn't ask
for them, I suppose.



Just to have it all on the same page, here's
the test input:

-----------
TEST CASE:

  ns <http://example.org/n#>
  assert (
   A0 p1 B .
  # A0 p2 C .
  # A0 p3 D .
  
  # A1 p1 B .
   A1 p2 C .
  # A1 p3 D .
  
  # A2 p1 B .
  # A2 p2 C .
   A2 p3 D .
  
  # A3 p1 B .
   A3 p2 C .
   A3 p3 D )
  
  ask (
   ( ?n p2 C || ?n p3 D ))
-----------

[...]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:29:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT