- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:22:24 -0400
- To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 06:17:16PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > conjunctive ones, but it explodes the number of queries needed > dramatically. In cases where the implementation strategy is based on RDBMS/SQL or in every case? I genuinely don't know. > In any case, I'm not convinced that users generally think in terms of > graph level disjunction, as I said I've not had requests for it. IIRC, Network Inference gets this a lot from its users and that's how 2.13 ended up in UC&R. > SQL has > no equivalent syntaxic form to graph disjunction Hmm, well, that's of only limited applicability here, IMO. But YYMV and clearly does. :> > > We have 2.13 and 3.13 in UC&R that imply disjunction in SPARQL. I > > haven't heard enough to disregard that. > > 2.13 can be answered just as well with []'s, and 2.13 is the justification > for 3.13. Well, as you say, we don't have a proof that optionals can satisfy 2.13 in every case. We do have evidence that doing so in common cases puts a pretty high burden on users. Some of those disjunction-via-optional examples are a bit hairy. I can't imagine ordinary folks writing them. Anyway, I've said my piece about this. Thanks for the response. Kendall
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 17:25:05 UTC