- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:45:03 -0600
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>On the other hand, I don't believe that your alternative semantics
>based on "union" works.
>Here is the counterexample - the same as before :-)
>
>GRAPH: :s :p _:b .
>
>query: { ?x :p _:a }
>
>where we mean _:a in the query to be used as a told bnode.
>Well, I expect to get the empty set as the answer, but with your
>union semantics I get [?x/:s].
But this case is impossible. The only way such a bnode can occur in a
query is if it were provided as a binding to a variable in a previous
query on the same graph. So the bnode must occur in the graph
somewhere. Then creating the union will cause the bnode in the
(subsequent) query to be identified with its previous occurrence in
the graph.
Pat
>cheers
>--e.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 03:45:12 UTC