- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:11:55 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Jun 12, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > On 11/06/12 21:41, Matthew Perry wrote: >> Thanks Greg. That makes sense, and I see that in the definition now, but >> some of the text in the doc may be a bit misleading: >> >> "There is also a "zero or one" connectivity property path operator, ?." >> ... "Such connectivity matching does not introduce duplicates (it does >> not incorporate any count of the number of ways the connection can be >> made) even if the repeated path itself would otherwise result in >> duplicates." >> >> I know we already approved all of this stuff, so I'm not suggesting that >> we change anything at this point. > > The quoted text is right, and the definitions evaluates to a set (and so the test is wrong ... as was some of my code). Sorry for the confusion, Matt! I was thrown by (I believe) eval(Path(X, link(iri), Y)) producing a multi set, but eval on ZeroOrOnePath(…) producing a set. Also, perhaps some wishful thinking on my part, because the multiset interpretation would be easier to implement… .greg
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 11:13:37 UTC