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

Re: definition of "potentially bound" variable

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:15:09 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AE42EC63-42C3-4AE9-8FF0-917FC5249449@deri.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

On 14 Sep 2010, at 10:44, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> On 14/09/10 09:58, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > As for ACTION-304 I started a formal definition of "potentially bound" variable at
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Potentially_bound
> >
> > this is not finished, but just to get the direction clear, based on that we can hopefully redefine "*".
> 
> Added MINUS (only the LHS),

makes sense.

> SERVICE

As for SERVICE ?v don't we need the variable to be bound somewhere else, i.e. if the variable only appears here, can it really be bound?

> and GROUP BY (assuming name
> introduction in GROUP BY)

I changed this to 

{ P1 } GROUP BY ...

Assuming that syntactically, the GROUP BY claus alone is not a GRAPH 
Pattern.

I also added HAVING.

> 
> The other definitions need to work with GROUP BY which hides the non-key
> variables variables.  To do this, it would seem easier to define the
> concept recursively, not declaratively.

my idea was to define it recusrively over the syntax

best,
Axel


> 
> BINDINGS?
> 
>         Andy
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:15:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT