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

After telecon BGP example

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:34:51 +0100
Message-ID: <86FE9B2B91ADD04095335314BE6906E87A9D92@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

After the telecon formally ended, we were talking about BGP's and
entailment.  Just for the record, the example I gave was:

Data:

:x :p 1 .
:x :p 2 .

Query:

SELECT * { ?x :p [] }

It's the same point as:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/rdfSemantics/query-se-bN
ode-type-var.rq


[2006/10/10 16:50] AndyS: Example: :x :p 1 . :x :p 2 . { ?x :p [] } =>
projection => counting is undef
[2006/10/10 16:52] ericP: | ?x |
[2006/10/10 16:52] ericP: | :x |
[2006/10/10 16:52] ericP: | :x |

The question I raised was whether an implementation is wrong if it
returns two results (both ?x = :x) given we don't define counting except
in the presence of DISTINCT.  I don't see why an implementation should
be forced in this one case to reduce to one result.

This is different from the entailment bug:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0041.html

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 14:35:09 GMT

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