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

RE: FW: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:46:06 +0200
To: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE801463C4CB6FE@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
 > Doesn't that permits the next request to generate the same bNode?

No, cf. 4.2.3:

"[...] and different from any blank nodes used in DS or in GS."

Best,
Axel


  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com] 
> Sent: Dienstag, 25. September 2012 15:43
> To: Polleres, Axel
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FW: Further comment on SPARQL 1.1 Test Cases
> 
> 
> 
> On 25/09/12 14:36, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> >> Just say "with a new blank node" - it's globally unique 
> over all time 
> >> - outside of request, operation or data anywhere, anywhen.
> >
> > The rationale behind my wording is that
> > A) is a new bnode for each solution tuple, so it depends on &mu;
> > B) we want 2 bnodes in different request to be different, 
> since the scope is just the request string.
> > So, it's "unique to the current update request and &mu;"
> 
> Doesn't that permits the next request to generate the same bNode?
> 
> (this is about bNode generation - not the original issue of blank node
> labels)
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> >
> > Axel
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"
> 
> Different!
> 
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 13:49:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT