W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Options on Property paths

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:22:33 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3236853B-CFB3-46B2-8010-97780E983E48@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2012-04-02, at 09:16, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> On 01/04/12 21:32, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>> 6) change the semantics of * and + only, leave everything else as in LC, cf.
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0285.html
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0286.html
>>     - Requires a new last call
>>     - May lead to formal objections within the working group?
>>      unsure whether it addresses commenters (mixing counting and non-counting)
>>     + more intuitive for common reachability use cases than option 3
> 
> 6.A:   /, |, ! as there are in 2LC.
> 6.B:   *, +, ? are non-counting
> 6.C:   No DISTINCT
> 6.D:   No {} forms: {n}, {n,m}, {n,}, {,m}
> 
> Option 6 also removes the {} forms.
> 
> + Leaves the syntax open for the future
>     e.g. {*}, {?length}, {?length>5}
> + {n,} is currently defined depending on *
> + {n,m} for large m-n, has the similar computability issues (WM-1)

Didn't someone (either in the WG, or a commentator) have a use case for {1,3} or similar?

I don't have a feel for how important it is, and I'm sure many would implement it as an extension.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:23:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT