W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Draft response for CommentResponse:JP-2

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:24:34 +0000
Message-ID: <4D3950D2.4040400@epimorphics.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 21/01/11 08:53, Axel Polleres wrote:
>
> On 20 Jan 2011, at 22:17, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 20/01/11 09:26, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Some small suggestions:
>>>
>>> 1)
>>> "Repetition of literals is significant, consider SUM applied to a purchase order where two items have the same price, so multiple paths to the same endpoint do matter."
>>> [...]
>>> "SPARQL has the keyword DISTINCT so an application can choose between duplicates and no duplicates. A query engine can exploit this if it chooses to; use with sub-queries mean that solution modifiers can be applied to specific parts of the query such as a path."
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>> "Repetition of literals is significant, consider SUM applied to a purchase order where two items have the same price, so - depending on the use case - multiple paths to the same endpoint do matter. That is, the group did not want to restrict to one use case, where only distinct paths are returned. Anyways, SPARQL has the keyword DISTINCT so an application can choose between duplicates and no duplicates. A query engine can exploit this if it chooses to; use with sub-queries mean that solution modifiers can be applied to specific parts of the query such as a path."
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that adds anything because discussion is framed by SUM
>> which is a use case.
>
> My point is, that there might be many use cases where multiple paths don't matter, my slight rewording and moving the sentence about distinct up should only stress that, sure we also cater for those where they don't, but that we explicitly want to cater for both.
> Does that make sense?

I do not want to make a judgement importance of one set of cases over 
another.

I prefer the current text which discusses the triple pattern / finite 
property path equivalence first which is the fundamental principle. 
Your text pushes that down.

>>
>
> Perfect! I think we could hint on that in the reply, as it shows that we take his comment serious!

That is unpublished text and is the point is already in the reply.

I take all comments seriously.

	Andy
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 09:25:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT