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

Re: Problem with test pp28

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:11:55 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <463F7C4B-952F-4342-AFD6-DAA223DEFFD7@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
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…

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 11:13:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:06 UTC