- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:48:01 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >> Hopefully a report will speed the telecon up (sorry - it's a bit >> rushed) >> ... >>> 5. formsOfDistinct >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/ >>> 0200.html >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#formsOfDistinct >> HP position: >> >> Two different solutions in a DISTINCT result set differ by one or >> more bindings. One binding is different from another if they refer >> to different variables or the values are RDFterm-different. >> DISTINCT is term-DISTINCT as defined for SPARQL (simple entailment). > [snip] > > Just to be clear, HP doesn't require graph leaning then? So it is > pairwise distinctness with answerset scoped bnodes. That isn't leaning the underlying graph being queried is it? To be lcear there: HP does not want eaning the underlying graph as a condition for SPARQL and wants redundancy in the queried graph to be exposed. See also around this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0088.html Services may choose to offer a lean graph if they so wish. But I'm guessing you mean leaning your graph definition of the graph of the result set (and not the graph form used by the DAWG test cases). I phrased it in non-graph language so as not have a dependency on either of those graph definitions, nor leaning of such graphs. I think that the same as says "not leaning" but I'm not fully aware of all the consequences and cases that arise when leaning a graph formed from a result set. (I suggest avoiding the term 'answerset' where possible because of the confusion with answerset programming). Andy > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 17:48:34 UTC