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

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

From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:12:09 -0500
Message-Id: <D24D16A6707B0A4B9EF084299CE99B3912CB476F@mcl-its-exs02.mail.saic.com>
To: "'Seaborne, Andy '" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Cc: "'''public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org ' ' '" <public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org>, "Personick, Michael R." <MICHAEL.R.PERSONICK@saic.com>, '''''''RDF Data Access Working Group ' ' ' ' ' ' ' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>

Andy,

I will be happy to do that.  I was asking some questions so as to get
at the "editor's intent" on this issue first.

Thanks,

-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: 3/27/2005 11:45 AM
Subject: 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
>>
Received on Sunday, 27 March 2005 23:12:27 GMT

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