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

Re: Comments response for AD-1 and AH-1

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:34:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4F848B36.608@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
a

On 10/04/12 17:01, Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> since I was picked as the victim for handling AD-1 and AH-1, here's my attempt:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:AH-1
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:AD-1
>
> In particular for AH-1 I would like some feedback for my arguments of
> why changing the BINDINGS semantics as suggested is problematic.

In reverse order:

** http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:AH-1

+1

The technical reason is that what is requested is that

BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... }
BINDINGS ( ?y ) { ... }

be the cross product (?x, ?y) but then what's

BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... }
BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... }

and generalise for more than one variable.

** http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:AH-1

Main point:

I'd like more time on this.  It seems an easy mistake to fall into and 
also one that might affect federated query.

One possibility is to allow BINDINGS in a group (i.e. between {}) then 
it's still a join but the FILTER is over the matching+joined data.

Editorial point:

+1

	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:34:46 GMT

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