- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:46:11 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 15 Oct 2007, at 15:49, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> [I preface this with a "I don't want to delay anything even a >> little bit!" comment. I don't!] >> <http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2007-10-15#T14-35-05> >> It seems to me that CONSTRUCT implicitly DISTINCTs. Is this true? >> It seems to me that there is room for a CONSTRUCT that had >> duplicate triples in it (for the usual reasons of streamability). >> If there was I discussion about this point, and it's easy for >> someone to dig out, I would appreciate a pointer. > > CONSTRUCT returns a graph. Whether the representation/serialization > of the graph contains duplicate triples is irrelevant to the spec's > concern, as far as I know. That is, my implementation can return: > :s :p :o . > > or it can return: > :s :p :o . > :s :p :o . > :s :p :o . > :s :p :o . > > ...and it's returning the same graph, and therefore it's returning > the same results. (Both are representations of the same set of > triples.) > > I'm sure someone else will correct me if I'm wrong. We discussed this on IRC and this is a clever bit of spec reading. It does then highlight the need for a CONSTRUCT DISTINCT. Be that as it may, I as an implementor and a user would find it helpful if there were a note pointing out this aspect. I confess that I would never in this lifetime have come up with that reading. So, if it would be possible to add a bit of text somewhere that clarified this point, I think that'd be swell. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 15:45:13 UTC