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

Re: BIND - a question of detail

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:02:00 -0400
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BF5F57E5-0F8F-4077-A03B-75DC0B44DF88@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> If BIND is "post-processing" on a BGP, then it would follow that two BINDS are both in the same BGP and FILTER can float across mnultiple adjacent BINDs.
> 
> Another example:
> 
> SELECT ?s ?p ?o ?z
> {
>  ?s ?p ?o .
>  BIND(?o+1 AS ?z1)
>  FILTER(?z2 = 3 )  ## use z2
>  BIND(?o+2 AS ?z2)
> }
> 
> The first way, FILTER is unbound.
> The second, the FILTER test the second BINDs outcome.


I currently implement the first way and have a mild preference for it, but I think that's mostly from an implementor's perspective. I don't have a good sense of what "makes sense" for BIND.

.greg
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 21:02:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT