W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: issue round-up, part 1

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:14:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4BF18777.2090507@thefigtrees.net>
To: Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 5/17/2010 8:03 AM, Olivier Corby wrote:
>  > PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-8 with the consensus that subqueries share the
> same RDF
>  > dataset as their parent query, and that FROM and FROM NAMED clauses
> are not
>  > permitted in subqueries.
>
> As I said in a previous post, I think there is an interaction between
> graph and subquery patterns. Does the graph pattern apply to subquery:
>
>
> graph ?g {
> {select * where { ... }}
> }
>
>
> I think this is not obvious because we can consider that the subquery
> creates a fresh new evaluation environment without graph ?g as current
> graph.
>
> This interpretation is based on this case:
>
> graph ?g1 {
> graph ?g2 { }
> }
>
> In this example, graph ?g2 creates a new evaluation environment in which
> graph ?g2 overloads/hides graph ?g1. We could have the same behavior
> with subquery.
>
> I think that the recommendation should explicit the behavior of graph
> pattern vs subquery.

I agree. Do you have a preference for the behavior of this construct?

Lee

>
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 18:19:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT