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

Variable in SOURCE (Was Re: A few simple tests)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:42:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4162DCEE.4000502@hp.com>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
CC: connolly@w3.org, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org

jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
> DanC wrote:
>>On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 06:23, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>>Attached is a revised set of tests that I have changed to be in be in
>>>the current syntax.
>>Has anybody else tried these?
> Yes and we can only run query1 and query3a in AndyS original message
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0541.html
> Among other things, our code can't handle unbound ?src in
> ?src.log:semantics log:includes {...}.
> (is how we actually try to do the SOURCE ?src (...)(...))


Thanks for pointing that out.  I see now that equating "SOURCE ?src" with
"?src.log:semantics log:includes" doesn't cover all cases as SOURCE operates in
the query context and log:semantics operates on the whole web.  For the case of
"SOURCE <uri>" the restriction to a named web resource makes that OK; for a
variable, it isn't.

There is also the matter of the named containers also forming the RDF merge of
the whole graph.  What ways of approaching it in N3QL are there?  It seems to me
that the data needs to be merged into the main graph as well as being in the
formula graphs.  It's the relationship between the two that isn't quite
log:semantics because it's scoped to the query context.  That relationship isn't
available to the query at all as it is not recorded in the outer merged RDF graph.

Would something some way of recording the container composition in triples in 
the query graph be workable, using a predicate that is different from log:semantics?

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:43:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC