- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:11:13 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Thanks for the pointers: Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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): Too true :-( > 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 The "FWIW" here seems to be a different aspect and one we seem to have not pushed on. > > """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 That one is very helpful in capturing the state of thinking. Andy > > 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 12:22:28 UTC