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

Re: Review of Fed-query for LC readiness (ACTION-502)

From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 10:20:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CABdcz9G+uYRiPquimqHwovKbfQJhBEZ2=Z9GXdDpvHra8E7fHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
dear all,

I changed the datasets, but instead of using the remote one as default local
graph, I simply removed a triple (:c a foaf:Person) in the default local
graph and I added another one to the remote endpoint (:c foaf:knows :a), so
BINDINGS is useful.

Carlos

2011/8/2 Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>

> On Aug 1, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
>
> > I updated the fed document with the changes you sugested. Regarding the
> BINDINGS section I completed it a bit more with the queries missing.
>
> I don't think the BINDINGS example in section 2.4 is particularly helpful.
> The example shows a situation where the BINDINGS clause isn't actually
> restricting the results that are sent back from the remote endpoint because
> the data on that endpoint is a subset of the BINDINGS values. I think it
> would be better if the data was reversed: :a and :b in the local dataset and
> :a, :b, and :c on the remote endpoint, with the BINDINGS clause restricting
> the pattern matching on the remote endpoint to just :a and :b.
>
> thanks,
> .greg
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 14:21:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT