- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:17:06 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20040618171706.GB28387@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:52:10PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > > From: Kendall Clark <> > > Date: 18 June 2004 13:01 > > > > Folks, > > > > I'm not wedded to this wording, but I think it at least hints at an > > important requirement. Ideally I'd like some kind of first class > > syntax for a boolean query -- SELECT BOOL or SELECT ? or ASK -- but > > the requirement isn't as much about syntax as it is about being able > > to query a graph and get back TRUE or FALSE. > > An observation: if we have LIMIT and if we have the trailing flag, "there > was more", then "LIMIT 0" is the same as asking "does this graph pattern > match at all?" and it can be optimized as such on the server - it would > depend on the same decisions elsewhere for disjunction. Or LIMIT 1 and no trailing flag. I think you can do all the same things with that. > That is not to say that syntax for it would not be appropriate. admittedly -- -eric office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University, 5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520 JAPAN +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA cell: +1.857.222.5741 (does not work in Asia) (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution.
Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 13:17:06 UTC