- From: Jeen Broekstra <j.broekstra@tue.nl>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:39:25 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Alright, nitpicking a bit: Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > persuant to > ACTION: ericP to draft text about a LOOSE keyword and run it by w3 > folks to see if we're abusing the "at risk" mechanism. > I drafted this section. It was slightly more awkward to not have an > ALL to lean on, but I think this is pretty well defined: > > 9.4 INDISTINCT When/where was this term introduced? If we decide to add this, I think I would actually prefer LOOSE: INDISTINCT suggests (to me at least) that it is the opposite of DISTINCT (which it is not; it would even be acceptable to have the same behavior as DISTINCT). > While the DISTINCT modifier ensures that duplicate solutions are > eliminated from the solution set, INDISTINCT simply permits them to be > eliminated. The cardinality of any set of variable bindings (solution) > in an INDISTINCT solution set at least one and not more than the ...*is* at least one... > cardinality of the solution set with no DISTINCT or INDISTINCT > modifier. Perhaps better formulation would be to refer to the cardinality of the solution set as prescribed by the algebra. > For example, the query > > PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> > SELECT INDISTINCT ?name WHERE { ?x foaf:name ?name } > > may have one, two (shown here) or three solutions: > name > "Alice" > "Alice" Of course, this only holds for a dataset which holds at least three solutions for Alice, you might want to make that more explicit in this paragraph (referring back to the example dataset explicitly?). Jeen -- Dr. Jeen Broekstra Den Dolech 2 Information Systems Group HG 7.76 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science P.O. Box 513 Technische Universiteit Eindhoven 5600 MB Eindhoven tel. +31 (0)40 247 36 86 The Netherlands
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 16:42:16 UTC