From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 13:42:01 +0100

Message-ID: <42777199.50007@hp.com>

To: Aditya Kalyanpur <swap_adityak@yahoo.com>

CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 13:42:01 +0100

Message-ID: <42777199.50007@hp.com>

To: Aditya Kalyanpur <swap_adityak@yahoo.com>

CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

Aditya Kalyanpur wrote: > Continuing where Bijan left off, I have a comment on > the formal definition of "Optional Matching". > > Here's what the specs [1] say: > "Given graph pattern GP1, and graph pattern GP2, > Opt(GP1, GP2) is the optional match of GP2 of graph G, > given GP1. > > Let GP = (GP1 union GP2) then S is a solution of > Opt(GP1, GP2) if" > [snip] > ----- > I'm not sure which "union" is meant here? Obviously, I > assume we don't mean the 'union' keyword used for > pattern alternatives. In any case, "union" implies > logical disjunction whereas what we need here is a > conjunction, i.e., we need a group pattern, so we can > rewrite GP = {GP1, GP2} > ---- > > ..continuing with the defn.. > > "S is a solution for a match of GP on G, or else S is > a solution for GP1 and S is not a solution for GP. > > S in R(Opt(GP1, GP2), G) if: > S in R(GP, G) > or > S not in R(GP,G) and S in R(GP1, G)." > ------ > > I'm not sure if "S not in R(GP,G)" is required in the > second disjunct. As I understand Optional Matching, if > S is a solution to an optional match of GP2 on G given > GP1, it implies that S must match GP1 first (on G) and > then optionally match GP2 (on G), right? So in that > case, the definition should be: > > S in R(Opt(GP1, GP2), G) if: > > S in R(GP1, G) > or > S in R(GP, G), where GP = {GP1, GP2} I think this definition is the same as defining OPT(P) as "P or true". It has nicer theoretical properties but gives more solutions and generally the extra solutions are unhelpful. Example: _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice> . _:a foaf:name "Alice" . Pattern { ?x foaf:name ?mbox OPTIONAL { ?x foaf:name ?name } } gives: ?mbox = <mailto:alice> ?mbox = <mailto:alice> ?name = "Alice" which isn't really what the application task is (i.e. extending a solution with extra information). I had a discussion with Bob McGreggor and Geoff Chappell about this on the comments list. It is not a simple matter of noting when an optional caused a binding or a fixed pattern - as patterns grow, the same solution can come via different routes. Andy > ------ > > Cheers, > Aditya > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/defns.htmlReceived on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 12:42:19 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC
*