- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:34:51 +0100
- To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
After the telecon formally ended, we were talking about BGP's and
entailment. Just for the record, the example I gave was:
Data:
:x :p 1 .
:x :p 2 .
Query:
SELECT * { ?x :p [] }
It's the same point as:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/rdfSemantics/query-se-bN
ode-type-var.rq
[2006/10/10 16:50] AndyS: Example: :x :p 1 . :x :p 2 . { ?x :p [] } =>
projection => counting is undef
[2006/10/10 16:52] ericP: | ?x |
[2006/10/10 16:52] ericP: | :x |
[2006/10/10 16:52] ericP: | :x |
The question I raised was whether an implementation is wrong if it
returns two results (both ?x = :x) given we don't define counting except
in the presence of DISTINCT. I don't see why an implementation should
be forced in this one case to reduce to one result.
This is different from the entailment bug:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0041.html
Andy
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 14:35:09 UTC