- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:21:34 +0100
- To: Simon Schenk <sschenk@uni-koblenz.de>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Ivan Mikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 26 May 2009, at 13:54, Simon Schenk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2009, 13:12 +0100 schrieb Axel Polleres:
>
>> When thinking about subqueries in FILTERs instead of just as
>> UNSAID/NOTEXISTS, I had rather thought about use cases where the
>> subquery appears in a complex filter expression...
>>
>>
>> E.g. let's say you look for persons who don't have an email address
>> (foaf:mbox) but an foaf:mbox_sha1sum or a foaf:homepage.
>>
>>
>> SELECT ?x
>> { ?x a foaf:Person
>> FILTER ( ! EXISTS{ ?x foaf:mbox [] }
>> && ( EXISTS{ ?x foaf:mbox [] }
>> || EXISTS{ ?x foaf:homepage [] } ) )
>> }
>>
>>
>> How'd you write that with the non-filter version? How'd you write
>> that
>> with the non-filter version? Probably here a version with UNION and
>> UNSAID instead would also not look much nicer.
>
> SELECT ?x
> { ?x a foaf:Person .
> UNSAID {?x foaf:mbox []} .
> { { ?x foaf:mbox_sha1sum }
> UNION
> { ?x foaf:homepage [] }
> }
> }
Or
SELECT ?x {
?x a foaf:Person .
?x ?prop [] .
UNSAID { ?x foaf:mbox [] }
FILTER(?prop = foaf:mbox_sha1sum || ?prop = foaf:homepage)
}
- 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 Tuesday, 26 May 2009 13:22:24 UTC