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 11:27:54 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A5F2FC03-99E5-4C88-932E-3BBC9555C216@deri.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
p.s.: as for BINDINGS, it is not clear to me entirely whether BINDINGS can introduce or just constrain solutions, I was kind of assuming the latter?
Can someone with a better grasp on fed-query shed more light on me, please?

Axel
 
On 14 Sep 2010, at 11:15, Axel Polleres wrote:

> 
> 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 10:28:29 GMT

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