- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 10:20:10 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 1 May 2009, at 09:43, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steve Harris >> Sent: 1 May 2009 08:51 >> To: SPARQL Working Group >> Subject: Re: Question regarding subselect >> >> Yes, that's my fault, I think I created that wiki page - SubQuery >> would have been a better name, and was my intention. It's SQL legacy >> where the only query verb is SELECT. Well... actually there's SHOW, >> but it's a bit different and you can't do sub-shows. >> >> SubASKs don't have to go in a FILTER, they're also useful in WHERE >> clauses, assuming they project either a solution with no bindings >> (for >> true) or no solutions (for false). Which I believe matches the SPARQL >> algebra (it matches my implementation of ASK, at least). > > The result from ASK is a boolean. > > We can make it go in patterns - like UNSAID would have - it's a > filter in disguise > > But then ({}) and () (that's a solution of one row, no bindings and > a solution of no rows) for true and false work so you get the right > answers. Sorry, I was being a bit lax in what I wrote (pre-coffee). I meant that the result of the WHERE part of the ASK is ({}) or (). Inside my implementation it looks a lot like SELECT /*nothing*/ WHERE { ... } LIMIT 1. The ASK verb translates that into boolean true or false. I may be wrong on the projection though, is it actually ({}+)? Or is there an implied LIMIT 1? >> I'm not convinced FROM { CONSTRUCT ... } achieves anything, but it >> may >> aid composability. > > Observation: If this is a SELECT with a FROM/CONSTRUCT, putting the > pattern of the CONSTRUCT onto the front of the SELECT pattern will > expose the same information (won't it?). Currently, a CONSTRUCT > template can generate bNodes and introduce new constants but other > wise it's the same variables as the pattern. Yes, that was my impression too. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 09:20:47 UTC