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

Re: [Fwd: Re: RDF Data Access Working Group : first working draft of SPARQL]

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:50:38 +0100
To: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041018125038.GE7201@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 06:27:31 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >1. Is the SELECT clause really useful?  My implementations return all 
> >variable bindings from the query, and I simply ignore those I don't want.
> >
> >...
> Locally, that is true - I'm sure that when the query processor and the
> application are in the same process, the QP may ignore the SELECT (I know 
> I do for everything except presenting results - anything else would be 
> pure overhead).

Also SELECT allow you to specify ordering of result columnss, which can e
helpful for XSLT processing or similar.
> >6. Can the resulting variable bindings contain repeated 
> >binding-tuples;  e.g. in response to a query like:
> >    SELECT ?a ?c
> >    WHERE  ( ?a ?b ?c )
> >against the graph:
> >    :s1 :p1 :o1 .
> >    :s1 :p2 :o1 .
> Yes - there can be repeated rows in the table.  It's a bag by the time
> SELECT has projected out any variables.
> There seems to be a problem with terminology that needs correcting.  The
> term "query solution" is used but it is confusing where it applies.  At
> least the Query Results definition either has to use "bag" or be clear 
> what it applies to.  Alternative naming might also help.
> There are two solutions (sets of bindings for variables "a" "b" and "c") 
> to the pattern match.  Query solutions are not effected by the query 
> result form.
> The query form takes solutions and transforms them into the
> application-level results.  (Implementations may, of course, use all
> information available in the query request and dataset to perform
> optimizations to query execution.)
> SELECT projects just the "a" and "b" binding in each.  SELECT does not
> change the number of rows in the table; SELECT DISTINCT does in this case.
> The language in the document is clearly confusing and I will go back and
> find better wording and terminology in the pattern matching sections and
> query form sections.
> [Steve - you may wish to comment here]

You certainly would expect repeated results if you think of it as a
results table, I'm not sure sure about when you think of it of a
set/list/bag of bindings. Someone (posibly SimonR?) mentioned that they
wouldnt expect multiple identical "rows" from a variable binding result,
but that outside my experience really.

3store only returns unique results, and its never caused any problems to
my knowledge. Theres a slight overhead, but its not that great and
gnerally offset (time wise) by the bandwidth saving. I have no strong
feelings either way. If we dont specify unique results then I would like
a DISTINCT keyword or equivalent.
- Steve
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 12:50:46 UTC

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