- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:15:03 +0000
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Eric Prud'hommeaux > Sent: 08 July 2009 17:59 > To: Lee Feigenbaum > Cc: SPARQL Working Group > Subject: Re: More on MINUS vs. UNSAID > > More specifically, I support conceptual compatibility with SQL MINUS > modulo adapting it to SPARQL's preservation of cardinality and the > fact that in SPARQL, you can have no common variables in A and B. > Your MINUS-AntiJoin+Restriction choice is thus more applicable. Eric, What is the cardinality of this MINUS? I'm not sure what you have in mind. SPARQL-UNION is not multiset UNION (that has a cardinality function of max, SPARQL's is plus). Here is some test case data: LHS: ?a="a" ?b="b" ?a="a" ?b="b" ?a="a" ?a="a" RHS-1: ?a="a" ?b="b" RHS-2: ?a="a" ?b="b" ?a="a" ?b="b" RHS-3: ?a="a" ?b="b" ?b="b" What are the output tables in each case? Andy
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 18:15:12 UTC