- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 01:39:40 +0000
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:39:32PM +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> A/ Section 6: More Pattern Matching ??? Alternatives
>
> Text added that uses UNION to handle alternatives, having looked through
> the email traffic on the comments list, on this list and on what various
> systems do about it. I had a brief conversation with Steve before
> travelled to let him know I would be doing this.
Andy, just to check I understand what it means - those {}'s in the UNION
examples are just sugar, yes?
In principle
SELECT ?title ?author
WHERE ( ?book dc10:title ?title )
( ?book dc10:creator ?author )
UNION ( ?book dc11:title ?title )
( ?book dc11:creator ?author )
could be an alternative syntax? Just checking that UNION has a similar
binding strength to SQLs UNION.
I prefer it without {}'s, but I'm not really bothered if theres a good
parser/whatever reason for it.
- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 01:39:44 UTC