W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: test case for graphSolutionMapping

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:26:15 +0100
Message-ID: <425BBE67.8050909@hp.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT