- From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen@aduna.biz>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:46:35 +0200
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:07 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > A comment asks... > "How many of the 14 test questions in [1] does the current SPARQL spec > cover ?" > -- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Apr/0005.html > -> http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/pha/rdf-query/ > > I'm interested to take a crack at it, but I'd like some confirmation > from other WG members that I've got this right before I reply. > Perhaps it's worth making these into test cases... I am one of the co-authors of that report, so if I can help out in any way let me know. [snip] > 5 Quantification > Return the persons who are authors of all publications. > > nope. > > The langauges with "yes" in this column seem to > support closed-world assumptions that > we don't support in SPARQL. I'm guessing that you are referring to the FORALL operation used in the example RQL query? Or more generally, to the notion of "all publications" in the specification of the query? Is universal quantification by definition something that falls outside SPARQL, or can it be scoped (for example, employing quantification on a named graph to allow closed-world assumption on that particular graph)? > 6 Aggregation > Count the number of authors of a publication. > > nope. > > unique names assumption. I have trouble with this. I think that defining a counting operation that does not count entities, but simply labels (URIs, bNodes, literals), would be useful. This does not make any unique names assumption, AFAICS. Counting would simply be a way of retrieving the number of results a query would give, without giving the actual result. Jeen -- Jeen Broekstra Aduna BV Knowledge Engineer Julianaplein 14b, 3817 CS Amersfoort http://aduna.biz The Netherlands tel. +31(0)33 46599877 fax. +31(0)33 46599877
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 10:44:47 UTC