W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: [TF-PP] Scoping the design space

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:58:17 +0000
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693EA8D790@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Gearon
> Sent: 28 September 2009 17:15
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: [TF-PP] Scoping the design space
> 
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
> wrote:
> <snip/>


> > Naively (ignoring complexity problems), allowing ?p to take any value
> seems to produce more
> > interesting use cases, especially in untidy real world data, where
> people might use different
> > predicates interchangably, e.g:
> >
> > SELECT ?s ?ob1 ?ob2 ?p WHERE {
> >      ?s ?p* ?y .
> >      FILTER(?p = <:somePredicate> || ?p =<:someSimilarPredicate> ) .
> > }
> 
> Filtering is not binding, though it may often appear the have the same
> effect (ignoring performance). This is a case that shows the
> difference though.

Don't need FILTERs to get into tricky territory:

{ <x> (?p|^?q)* <z> }

	Andy

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 10:00:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT