- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:30:16 -0500
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 08:15, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:00:46PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 22:38, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > > I'm a dork. I sent out an optional arcs impelementation. I was supposed > > > to send disjunction implementation. > > > > Specifically, w.r.t. 3.4 Subgraph Results > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20040602/#r3.4 [...] > If you specify an output mode like RDFXML, you'll get a > graph with all of those statements mushed together. > > homer:/home/eric$ ./union-alg.sh -sClass n3 > @prefix : <http://example.org/n#> > A1 p2 C . > A2 p3 D . > A3 p2 C ; > p3 D . OK, that's what I was looking for. Hmm... now that I think about it, I guess that design does work. The results are, in a way, not very interesting: the client may have a hard problem figuring out what ?n matched... they basically have to do the query again. But if they don't want "subgraph results" they shouldn't ask for them, I suppose. Just to have it all on the same page, here's the test input: ----------- TEST CASE: ns <http://example.org/n#> assert ( A0 p1 B . # A0 p2 C . # A0 p3 D . # A1 p1 B . A1 p2 C . # A1 p3 D . # A2 p1 B . # A2 p2 C . A2 p3 D . # A3 p1 B . A3 p2 C . A3 p3 D ) ask ( ( ?n p2 C || ?n p3 D )) ----------- [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 09:29:31 UTC