Re: bnodeification (was: Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns) from Souripriya Das on 2006-01-10 (public-rdf-dawg@w3.org from January to March 2006)

From: Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:12:11 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, bparsia@isr.umd.edu, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, Sergio Tessaris <tessaris@inf.unibz.it>
Message-ID: <43C317FB.2080100@oracle.com>

Quoting from Pat Hayes's e-mail 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0051.html :

"Another way to define S(Q) is to imagine that every bnode in Q is 
replaced by a distinct query variable (which cannot be SELECTed, 
however) and then use this definition. There are cases in which this 
definition is slightly tighter than the previous one, eliminating some 
redundancy. Also this doesn't need the ordered-merge idea."

This seems to be a simpler way. Has this been discussed already?

Thanks,
- Souri.

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 02:13:04 UTC