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

RE: A question regarding the latest SPARQL 1.1 Proposed Recommendation

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:19:33 +0100
To: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80158152F1C84@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
To my understanding of [1], fixing a bug in an example is a minor editorial change - which we can still incorporate when moving to Rec, yes? I assume/hope we need no formal group vote on approving such minor change,  do we, Sandro?

(the question similarly applied to the change I requested for Overview in [2])

Best,
Axel

1. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012OctDec/0209.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2012 09:59
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Fwd: A question regarding the latest SPARQL 1.1 Proposed
> Recommendation
> 
> I've fixed this in the editors working draft, hoping that's the right thing to
> do.
> 
> Does this need to go on some errata list somewhere as well?
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: A question regarding the latest SPARQL 1.1 Proposed Recommendation
> Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:47:17 +0000
> Resent-From: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:55:12 +0100
> From: Christopher Schramm <schramm@informatik.uni-luebeck.de>
> To: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
> 
> Dear W3C,
> 
> i've encountered a problem while reading the SPARQL 1.1 Proposed
> Recommendation of November 8.
> 
> The question i have is in regards to an example in section 9.2. The example
> deals with Inverse Path Sequences and has the following example:
> 
> {
>      ?x foaf:knows/^foaf:knows ?y .
>      FILTER(?x != ?y)
>    }
> 
> 
> is equivalent to
> 
>    {
>      ?x foaf:knows ?gen1 .
>      ?gen1 foaf:knows ?y .
>      FILTER(?x != ?y)
>    }
> 
> However, in my opinion it should be equivalent to
> 
>    {
>      ?x foaf:knows ?gen1 .
>      ?y foaf:knows ?gen1 .
>      FILTER(?x != ?y)
>    }
> 
> Otherwise i fail to see the difference between the orgininal query and the
> same query without an inversion. I would like to hear your opinion on the
> matter. Moreover i have a question regarding the following query:
> 
> {
>      ?x ^(foaf:a/foaf:b) ?y .
>    }
> 
> I would think, that the equivalent query would be the following:
> 
> {
>      ?y foaf:b ?gen1 .
>      ?gen1 foaf:a ?x .
>    }
> 
> Am i correct there?
> 
> Thank you for answers.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Christopher Schramm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 09:20:13 GMT

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