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: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:09:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4F853C40.90703@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 10/04/12 20:34, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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.

Overnight thinking:

If BINDINGS are allowed in groups, this just works out.

The confusion point of

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

is probably the empty (multi) set as I'd guess the normal writer is 
going to write two different (no value in common) sets.  The join of 
different values for ?x being empty.

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

is chaotic but explainable, maybe even sensible.

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 08:10:08 GMT

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