- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:00:23 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: [snip] >> But this is an interesting refinement, that is, the graph tells us >> enough to distinguish the two *terms*, rather than the two *answers*. > > To distinguish the two terms, exactly. And the terms *are* the > answers. (Really, by definition, they are.) [snip] In SPARQL? Or in general? I don't accept that anything is settled by the current SPARQL definitions since we are pretty much debating that. Since DISTINCT was un(der)defined, the way the definitions affect its interpretation is, I think, new information. In general, I don't see why that's true. Even if so, the question is if the answers are redundant. After all, this is a fine answer set: ?x ?y a b a b So two answers, or one? Two "obviously", but two DISTINCT answers? Well, it depends :) So by "distinguish" I mean "distinguish as DISTINCT". Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 12:00:51 UTC