W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-dev@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Brackets, OPTIONALs, BINDs, semantics, oh my.

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:11:48 +0000
Cc: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <00000151ab58e591-4c52f328-565a-4e1d-a8d2-c85405f4411a-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
To: Gary King <gwking@metabang.com>
good afternoon;

> On 2015-12-16, at 14:57, Gary King <gwking@metabang.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I’ve a question on the model query writers should have when reasoning about their work. I think the naive view would be that adding grouping would _not_ alter the meaning of the query but this is not the case.
> […]

> If my examples are correct, then SPARQL seems more difficult than it should be to reason about than it should be. I’d welcome comments and thoughts.

i would be interested to hear, why you find the interpretations, which you have readily recounted, to be surprising.

once one realizes that { } is not the same as ( ), what is the “surprise” which remains?

best regards, from berlin,
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:12:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:12:34 UTC