W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Summary of BNode redundancy options (at the moment)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:00:23 +0100
Message-Id: <922F64DD-8678-4C82-AA4C-BAD06494C19C@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[snip]
>> But this is an interesting refinement, that is, the graph tells us  
>> enough to distinguish the two *terms*, rather than the two *answers*.
>
> To distinguish the two terms, exactly. And the terms *are* the  
> answers. (Really, by definition, they are.)
[snip]

In SPARQL? Or in general? I don't accept that anything is settled by  
the current SPARQL definitions since we are pretty much debating  
that. Since DISTINCT was un(der)defined, the way the definitions  
affect its interpretation is, I think, new information.

In general, I don't see why that's true. Even if so, the question is  
if the answers are redundant. After all, this is a fine answer set:

	?x ?y
	a	b
	a	b

So two answers, or one? Two "obviously", but two DISTINCT answers?  
Well, it depends :) So by "distinguish" I mean "distinguish as  
DISTINCT".

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 12:00:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:27 GMT