Re: solution/variable bindings (was Re: pls consider comments on disjunction)

Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
> Andy,
> 
> When you say "solutions to graph patterns", would it be far to the
> semantics to replace that statement with "variable bindings?"

Informally, yes.  "Solution" (or in full "pattern solution") is the 
terminology defined in rq23, not "variable bindings" - this is already noted 
in the document.  See 2.1 and 2.3.

Could you frame questions as questions about the document, and ideally 
specific pieces of text?  We are entering into a phase where the document 
will be intensively reviewed (we hope!) and the text is what matters.

	Andy

> 
> -bryan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seaborne, Andy
> To: Thompson, Bryan B.
> Cc: 'public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org '; Personick, Michael R.; '''''RDF Data
> Access Working Group ' ' ' ' '; Bebee, Bradley R.
> Sent: 3/26/2005 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: pls consider comments on disjunction
> 
> 
> 
> Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
> 
>>Andy,
>>
>>Thank you for your clarification.  Are there any ways in which the
>>semantics of the SPARQL UNION operator differs from the set theoretic
>>UNION operator?
> 
> 
> Not sure I understand the intent behind the question - SPARQL UNION
> works 
> with solutions to graphs patterns and set union defines membership
> although 
> the defintion of UNION/SPARQL defines a solution as matching one sub 
> expression or the other hence a (set) union of sets of solutions passes.
> 
> SPARQL UNION says nothing about duplicates.
> 
> The definition in rq23 is the place to work from.  If you identify 
> differences then please email the list.
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 
>>Thanks,
>>
>>-bryan
>>