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

Re: Corrected sparqlx schema (sent the wrong one previously)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:12:37 -0500
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050323161237.GC9841@monkeyfist.com>

On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:55:55PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> pattern-group.
> 
>    { pattern } UNION  {}
> 
> is  "pattern OR true".

Ah, hmm. I think an example query like that should be in
rq23. FWIW. I'll tweak my stuff, though.

> >>      | element dataset-constraint {
> >>          (uri | variable), (group-pattern)
> >>        }*
> >>       ^^^^ ????? why *
> >
> >
> >I assume trang set that cardinality to * because of sparqlx-23.xml in
> >the zip file, which serializes this query:
> 
> I'd do that as a group with two GRAPHs in it rather than special casing it.

But that wouldn't change the cardinality of dataset-constraint, would
it? You'd still have something like:

<query-pattern>
<group-pattern>
 <dataset-constraint>
  <uri>...</uri>
  <triple-pattern>...</triple-pattern>
 </dataset-constraint>
 <dataset-constraint>
  <variable name="foo"/>
  <triple-pattern></triple-pattern>
 </dataset-constraint>
</group-pattern>
</query-pattern>

Plus, I don't understand this as an interpretation of rq23 syntax:

GRAPH data:aliceFOAF { ...several triple patterns... }

Doesn't the { and } introduce a group-pattern?

Kendall
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 16:16:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:22 GMT