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

Re: Work in propgress on rq23

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 01:39:40 +0000
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041109013940.GJ15046@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:39:32PM +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> A/ Section 6: More Pattern Matching ??? Alternatives
> 
> Text added that uses UNION to handle alternatives, having looked through 
> the email traffic on the comments list, on this list and on what various 
> systems do about it.  I had a brief conversation with Steve before 
> travelled to let him know I would be doing this.

Andy, just to check I understand what it means - those {}'s in the UNION
examples are just sugar, yes?

In principle

SELECT ?title ?author
WHERE ( ?book dc10:title ?title )
      ( ?book dc10:creator ?author )
UNION ( ?book dc11:title ?title )
      ( ?book dc11:creator ?author )

could be an alternative syntax? Just checking that UNION has a similar
binding strength to SQLs UNION.

I prefer it without {}'s, but I'm not really bothered if theres a good
parser/whatever reason for it.

- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 01:39:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT