- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:48:54 +0100
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hmm. I had a few better queries (and gave up on Google; for some reason google horribly sucks at querying the W3C mail archives; mebbe need to filter the scope to the w3c site): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0271 Some stuff around here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0221 Also, it's important that scoping set dorking is not sufficient as seen: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/ 0195.html (i.e., you have to constraint the queries to, e.g., avoid variables in certain positions and patterns) Hmm. this might be closer: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/ 0190.html And here, but it's just a clue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/ 0198.html """If we say that bindings must be to terms in some restricted set, and don't allow that set to have too many bnodeIDs in it, then ?x might fail to have a binding when _:x was true, according to Sergio. This is the argument that he used against the proposal to treat pattern bnodes as blank variables.""" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0210.html """Sergio pointed out that SELECT doesn't necessarily indicate distinguishedness. That is, on some folks understanding, *ALL* query variables are distinguished all the time, but only sometimes projected (which is what the listing of vars in the SELECT clause means on this reading).""" Aha! http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0301 Though the text seems a little buggy in places (e.g., the example) This is the closest I get for now. If someone else wants to search further from here, then yay. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 11:58:48 UTC