- From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:12:09 -0500
- To: "'Seaborne, Andy '" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: "'''public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org ' ' '" <public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org>, "Personick, Michael R." <MICHAEL.R.PERSONICK@saic.com>, '''''''RDF Data Access Working Group ' ' ' ' ' ' ' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>
Andy, I will be happy to do that. I was asking some questions so as to get at the "editor's intent" on this issue first. Thanks, -bryan -----Original Message----- From: Seaborne, Andy To: Thompson, Bryan B. Cc: ''public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org ' '; Personick, Michael R.; ''''''RDF Data Access Working Group ' ' ' ' ' '; Bebee, Bradley R. Sent: 3/27/2005 11:45 AM Subject: Re: solution/variable bindings (was Re: pls consider comments on disjunction) Thompson, Bryan B. wrote: > Andy, > > When you say "solutions to graph patterns", would it be far to the > semantics to replace that statement with "variable bindings?" Informally, yes. "Solution" (or in full "pattern solution") is the terminology defined in rq23, not "variable bindings" - this is already noted in the document. See 2.1 and 2.3. Could you frame questions as questions about the document, and ideally specific pieces of text? We are entering into a phase where the document will be intensively reviewed (we hope!) and the text is what matters. Andy > > -bryan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seaborne, Andy > To: Thompson, Bryan B. > Cc: 'public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org '; Personick, Michael R.; '''''RDF Data > Access Working Group ' ' ' ' '; Bebee, Bradley R. > Sent: 3/26/2005 12:11 PM > Subject: Re: pls consider comments on disjunction > > > > Thompson, Bryan B. wrote: > >>Andy, >> >>Thank you for your clarification. Are there any ways in which the >>semantics of the SPARQL UNION operator differs from the set theoretic >>UNION operator? > > > Not sure I understand the intent behind the question - SPARQL UNION > works > with solutions to graphs patterns and set union defines membership > although > the defintion of UNION/SPARQL defines a solution as matching one sub > expression or the other hence a (set) union of sets of solutions passes. > > SPARQL UNION says nothing about duplicates. > > The definition in rq23 is the place to work from. If you identify > differences then please email the list. > > Andy > > >>Thanks, >> >>-bryan >>
Received on Sunday, 27 March 2005 23:12:27 UTC