- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:15:11 +1000
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 11/03/2016 15:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2016 08:37 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> On 11/03/2016 13:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2016 06:04 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2016 1:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>> On 03/09/2016 12:46 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/03/2016 18:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that this fails in a number of places.
> [...]
>>>>>>> The substitution can modify variables from different scopes, which will
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>> Do you have an example for this?
>>>>> SELECT ?this ?that
>>>>> WHERE { ?this ex:a ex:b
>>>>> SELECT ?that WHERE { ?this ex:a ?that } }
>>>> The definition states that substitution also happens in nested SELECTs. I
>>>> believe this meets user expectations, and would be needed for cases like
>>>> sh:minCount that use a nested SELECT. I don't quite see a problem with the
>>>> above. Do you have data to illustrate why this would cause problems?
>>> Because the ?this in the inner SELECT is a different variable. Before
>>> substitution it would return any ?that that is the object of any ex:a triple.
>>> After substitution it returns only those that have the substituted value as a
>>> subject.
>> Yes, but that is exactly the desired outcome.
>>
>> Holger
> I'm not a SPARQL expert, but I don't think so.
>
>
> Let's pre-bind ?this to ex:c (this is a very easy case of pre-binding, so
> what to do is pretty obvious) in
>
> SELECT ?this ?that
> WHERE { ?this ex:a ex:b .
> SELECT ?that WHERE { ?this ex:a ?that } }
>
> against graph
>
> ex:c ex:a ex:b .
> ex:d ex:a ex:f .
>
> The result set is
> ?this = ex:c, ?that = ex:b
> ?this = ex:c, ?that = ex:f
Yes that's without binding the inner ?this.
>
> Let's substitute ?this by ex:c to get (roughly)
>
> SELECT (ex:c AS ?this) ?that
> WHERE { ex:c ex:a ex:b .
> SELECT ?that WHERE { ex:c ex:a ?that } }
>
> which results in only one solution
> ?this = ex:c, ?that = ex:b
Yes, that's the intended result. I don't see the problem (yet?)
Holger
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 06:15:47 UTC