- From: Richard Newman <rnewman@franz.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:36:32 -0700
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On 27 Mar 2007, at 12:37 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Note that the REDUCED keyword is an at-risk feature in the current > Last > Call draft that can modify the cardinalities of solutions within the > solution sequence. It is defined in > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#modReduced . Lee, A request for clarification. I presume (but do not know for sure) that results that the implementation has completely refined (as permitted by REDUCED) count as distinct for the purposes of output (REDUCED does not appear in [1]). This would be the case if an implementation interprets REDUCED as DISTINCT. I similarly presume that if the results are equivalent to those of the same query without DISTINCT or REDUCED (i.e., that no refinement has occurred; the implementation ignores REDUCED), then the implementation should not assert distinctness in the results. However: "The cardinality of any set of variable bindings in an REDUCED solution set is at least one and not more than the cardinality of the solution set with no DISTINCT or REDUCED modifier." Let us assume that a query produces one row of bindings with DISTINCT, and nine identical rows without. With REDUCED, five identical rows are produced. This is acceptable according to my interpretation of the above text. Is the correct output: <results ordered="false" distinct="false"> or <results ordered="false" distinct="true"> ? Many thanks, -R [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/>
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 06:36:44 UTC