- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:58:17 +0000
- To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, 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 Paul Gearon
> Sent: 28 September 2009 17:15
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: [TF-PP] Scoping the design space
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
> wrote:
> <snip/>
> > Naively (ignoring complexity problems), allowing ?p to take any value
> seems to produce more
> > interesting use cases, especially in untidy real world data, where
> people might use different
> > predicates interchangably, e.g:
> >
> > SELECT ?s ?ob1 ?ob2 ?p WHERE {
> > ?s ?p* ?y .
> > FILTER(?p = <:somePredicate> || ?p =<:someSimilarPredicate> ) .
> > }
>
> Filtering is not binding, though it may often appear the have the same
> effect (ignoring performance). This is a case that shows the
> difference though.
Don't need FILTERs to get into tricky territory:
{ <x> (?p|^?q)* <z> }
Andy
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 10:00:04 UTC