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: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:35:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4F905B04.2060006@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
See also:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0010.html
from Stephen Allen <sallen@apache.org>

On 11/04/12 09:09, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> 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 Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:36:27 GMT

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