On 23 Nov 2009, at 15:48, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 23/11/2009 14:50, Steve Harris wrote: >> >> Otherwise the pattern can be reordered without changing the >> semantics, >> as far as I understand it. > > It will depend on the implementation as to whether mixing quads > +triples is the same. In a quad-centric implementation, sure, it's > pattern flattening to quad-joins. But in others systems the triples > and names graphs might be held differently resulting in different > join characteristics within BGP/quad blocks and across them. Good point, I was looking at it with quad-centric eyes. > FILTER+joins (as in {}-joins) have scoping issues as per normal > SPARQL. Yup. Whereas if we just use whatever's in a template (i.e. BGP, maybe GRAPH depending on syntax) then we wouldn't have that scoping issue. Again, not really that bothered, just I'd prefer to exclude FILTER to make it simpler. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9ADReceived on Monday, 23 November 2009 18:09:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT