- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:26:15 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> Klyne asks
>
> [[
> Source data:
>
> _:a ex:p1 ex:o1 .
> _:a ex:p1 ex:o2 .
>
> Query:
> CONSTRUCT ( ?s ex:p1 ?o )
> WHERE { ( ?s ex:p1 ?o ) }
>
> Result (a):
> _:a ex:p1 ex:o1 .
> _:a ex:p1 ex:o2 .
> or (b):
> _:a1 ex:p1 ex:o1 .
> _:a2 ex:p1 ex:o2 .
> ?
> ]]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Apr/0012.html
>
>
> He thinks (b) and so do I, and I think that follows from the
> text, esp from the definition of RDF graph merge. Perhaps
> it would be useful to be more explicit about importing the
> term "merge" from rdf-mt or rdf-concepts.
It should be (a) - I agree the text is misleading at best. I'l change it to
something like union of sets of triples to avoid the merge word. Until it is
serialized, it is the same bNode from the query matching.
(b) is unhelpful:
CONSTRUCT { ?x ?y ?z } WHERE { ?x ?y ?z } will not give an isomorphic graph is
any bNode is <1-connected.
Andy
>
> In any case, let's add a test case to be sure. Steve, are you game?
> Or Dave? Or perhaps I should learn to do these myself?
>
> For reference...
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#graphSolutionMapping
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:26:28 UTC