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

RE: action item "to send pointers to test cases to the list"

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:03:34 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E8080398445F@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


Thanks for the explanation - I'd missed the effect of merging the two
:select a queries together.  Let me try and rephrase to make sure I
understand / for you to point out where I have missed the point:

We have queries:

# S1 - must we have the ?Y here?
[] q:select { (?X ?Y) } ;
   q:where  { :x :p ?X } .

# S2
[] q:select { (?X ?Y) } ;
   q:where  { :x :p ?X ; :x :q ?Y } .

:x :p "v-p" .
:x :q "v-q" .


S1 gives graph ("v-p" ?Y)
S2 gives graph ("v-p" "v-q")

merging gives:

("v-p", "v-q")

because ?Y unifes with "v-q", so because there is at least match,
the original ("v-p" ?Y) can be removed. This is the merge rule for universal

[Aside: in
   [] q:select { q:result q:is (?X ?Y) } ;
      q:where  { :x :p ?X ; :x :q ?Y } .
why is the ?X in the q:select formula connected to the ?X in the q:where
formula.  What are the scoping rules on ?-named variables? Is it the

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 09:04:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:44 UTC