- From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:08:17 +1300
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Never mind. Drank some more coffee, looked again, and figured out that in sq03, binding of ?g in the sub-select should not propagate up to the graph clause (because ?g is not in the projection). Apologies for wasting your time. Jeen On 20/02/12 17:08, Jeen Broekstra wrote: > > Dear WG, > > could someone please explain to me what the difference is between > testcases subquery/sq02 and subquery/sq03? > > Query sq02 is : > > select ?x ?p where { > graph ?g { > {select * where {?x ?p ?g}} > } > } > > Query sq03 is : > > select ?x where { > graph ?g { > {select ?x where {?x ?p ?g}} > } > } > > Both queries are tested on the same dataset > (http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/subquery/sq01.rdf). > Apart from a slightly different projection, both queries are identical. > > Yet for some reason sq02 is expected to return only a binding of ?x to > in:c, while sq03 is expected to return bindings of ?x to both in:c and > in:a. > > Could it be that there is a mistake in test case sq03? I would at first > glance expect that both queries should only return bindings of ?x to > in:c, and not in:a. > > Regards, > > Jeen
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 06:08:50 UTC