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

Re: BIND - a question of detail

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:52:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4CCF7CFA.2080208@thefigtrees.net>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 10/21/2010 5:02 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
> 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.

I implement the second way and have a mild preference for it. :-)

I'll stick it on tomorrow's agenda but don't think it's worth a lot of 
our time.

Lee

>
> .greg
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 02:53:23 GMT

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