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

Re: candidate requirement: boolean query

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:17:06 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040618171706.GB28387@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:52:10PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> > From: Kendall Clark <>
> > Date: 18 June 2004 13:01
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > I'm not wedded to this wording, but I think it at least hints at an
> > important requirement. Ideally I'd like some kind of first class
> > syntax for a boolean query -- SELECT BOOL or SELECT ? or ASK -- but
> > the requirement isn't as much about syntax as it is about being able
> > to query a graph and get back TRUE or FALSE.
> 
> An observation: if we have LIMIT and if we have the trailing flag, "there
> was more", then "LIMIT 0" is the same as asking "does this graph pattern
> match at all?" and it can be optimized as such on the server - it would
> depend on the same decisions elsewhere for disjunction.

Or LIMIT 1 and no trailing flag.
I think you can do all the same things with that.

> That is not to say that syntax for it would not be appropriate.

admittedly
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741 (does not work in Asia)

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 13:17:06 GMT

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