- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:45:52 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 9 Oct 2009, at 17:15, 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: 08 October 2009 12:50 >> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group >> Subject: [TF-PP] Questions on Property Paths >> >> I've just read through the document Andy posted: >> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:PropertyPaths >> and I have a couple of questions: >> >> Is the () construct particularly useful? Without have tried it it >> does >> seems like it might make the design much harder to implement that if >> it was absent. Though I'd welcome evidence to the contrary. > > With foaf:knows, the foaf:Person is connected to another foaf:Person > by a single property. Sometimes, the link from one resource to the > next is via two of more properties so > > ?x (:p/:q)+ ?y OK, I can see that you can't do that without that syntax. Do you have any feel for how much effort it was to do an implementation? >> "Cycles in paths are possible and are handled." in any particular >> way? > > Rough wording. Cycles exist naturally so have to be handled but > that's an implementation issues. It might be by tracking visited > nodes, or it might be just part of some algorithm. (e.g. Floyd- > Walshall does not have special cases for cycles). OK, so you're not proposing any particular solution at this point? - Steve
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 16:46:29 UTC