- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:58:29 +0200
- To: Jorge Adrián Pérez Rojas <jperez@ing.puc.cl>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:12:28AM -0400, Jorge Adrián Pérez Rojas wrote:
> Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 05:52:52PM -0400, Jorge Pérez wrote:
> >> Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> I've been following the development of SPARQL for a couple of months and
> >> I've a comment about your last mail on public-rdf-dawg (I've no access
> >> to
> >> this list so I'm writing only to you).
> >>
> >> You say that a query like
> >>
> >> ...
> >> WHERE {
> >> ?a dc10:title "thing" .
> >> OPTIONAL { ?a dc10:creator ?name }
> >> ?a cc:license ?license .
> >> OPTIONAL { ?a dc11:creator ?c .
> >> ?c rdf:value ?name }
> >> }
> >>
> >> must be evaluated as two patterns with OPTIONALs in them. What I
> >> understand from what yo say is that we have a group graph pattern with
> >> two
> >> OPTIONAL patterns inside:
> >>
> >> ?a dc10:title "thing" .
> >> OPTIONAL { ?a dc10:creator ?name }
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> ?a cc:license ?license .
> >> OPTIONAL { ?a dc11:creator ?c .
> >> ?c rdf:value ?name }
> >>
> >> is that correct? If this is the case the spec says that the solutions
> >> are
> >> the ones that are solution simultaneously to both patterns,
> >
> > I disagree with the "simultaneously" part. That is, I think the "any" in
> > [[
> > There is no implied order of graph patterns within a Group Graph
> > Pattern. Any solution for the group graph pattern that can satisfy all
> > the graph patterns in the group is valid, independently of the order
> > that may be implied by the lexical order of the graph patterns in the
> > group.
> > ]]
> > means that it's a union of all of the possible interpretations.
>
> Im ok with the *any* part, but the *simultaneously* part in my argument
> refeer to the **all** part in
> [[
> There is no implied order of graph patterns within a Group Graph
> Pattern. Any solution for the group graph pattern that can satisfy **all**
> the graph patterns in the group is valid, independently of the order
> that may be implied by the lexical order of the graph patterns in the
> group.
> ]]
>
> so, from my point of view, the mapping
>
> | ?name | ?c |
> +--------------+-------+
> | "John Smith" | |
>
> is not a solution because it do not satisfy **all** the graph patterns in
> the group (it do not satisfy the second OPTIONAL graph patter in the
> group).
Interesting. That's certainly a valid interpretation of "all". My
interpretation had been that a solution satisfies all of the
constraints when evaluated in any given order. Yours appears to be <-+
that a solutions satisfies all the constrains when evaluated in all |
possible orders. |
|
There are some folks who are working on clarifying the formal |
semantics right now; I'll ask them to look at this. Hey AndyS, PatH, |
FredZ, look at this:--------------------------------------------------+
> Acording to your argument the query
>
> SELECT ?name
> WHERE
> {
> { ?a dc10:creator ?name }.
> { ?b rdf:value ?name }
> }
>
> will also be a union of all of the possible interpretations, and then will
> have as solution the mappings
>
> | ?name |
> +--------------+
> | "John Smith" |
> | "Joe Bloggs" |
>
> is that correct?
> If the **all** is changed for **any of** in the spec I would read the spec
> in the same way as you do.
>
> I understand the center of your argument now, thanks for the clarification.
>
> - jorge
>
> >
> >> so I think
> >> the
> >> above query agaisnt the following data
> >>
> >> :a dc10:title "thing" .
> >> :a dc10:creator "John Smith" .
> >> :a cc:license "steal this book"
> >> :a dc:11:creator _:jb .
> >> _:jb rdf:value "Joe Bloggs" .
> >>
> >> has empty solution. For example, the mapping
> >>
> >> | ?name | ?c |
> >> +--------------+-------+
> >> | "John Smith" | |
> >>
> >> could not be a solution because although it is a solution for the first
> >> pattern it is not a solution for the second pattern. Similarly the
> >> mapping
> >>
> >> | ?name | ?c |
> >> +--------------+-------+
> >> | "Joe Bloggs" | _:jb1 |
> >>
> >> is not a solution because it is not a solution for the first pattern. Am
> >> I
> >> misreading something about your arguments?
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Jorge Perez
> >
> > --
> > -eric
> >
> > home-office: +1.617.395.1213 (usually 900-2300 CET)
> > cell: +81.90.6533.3882
> >
> > (eric@w3.org)
> > Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> > email address distribution.
> >
> >
>
--
-eric
home-office: +1.617.395.1213 (usually 900-2300 CET)
cell: +81.90.6533.3882
(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2006 15:56:56 UTC