- 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