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

Re: Issue #rdfSemantics / #owlDisjunction

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:15:56 +0200
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF181C4D03.EADD5375-ONC1257093.005318FD-C1257093.0053C98A@agfa.com>

[...]
>> The definition is plain wrong, since you don't want to "RDF merge" 
bnodes 
>> coming from the graph, just the ones in the template:
>> 
>>      CONSTRUCT { ?x :looks ?y } with answer set [?x/_:a,?y/:here], 
>> [?x/_:a,?y/:there]
>> 
>> results in the graph
>> 
>>      _:a :looks :here . _:a1 :looks :there .
>> 
>> where the coreference on _:a is lost.
>> 
>
> What you outline looks right - 

Not when I run
cwm test.n3 -think -sparql=test.rq

where test.n3 is
@prefix : <test#> .
_:a :test :here.
_:a :test :there.

and test.rq is
PREFIX : <test#>
CONSTRUCT { ?x :looks ?y } WHERE { ?x :test ?y }

Cwm gives
      [      :looks :here,
                    :there ].

Also when I run
euler test.n3 -nope -think -query test.rq

euler gives
_:a_0_ :looks :here.
_:a_0_ :looks :there.
-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 15:37:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT