- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:08:08 +0000
- To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 24 Nov 2009, at 14:24, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >> >> This means that, in fact and by analogy it would not shock me if we >> had >> similar duplications if there are multiple possible pathes from ?a >> to ?b >> with different lengths, and that length is explicitly asked for... So >> talking about minimal or maximal length is unnecessary. If we have >> two >> possible ways to get from ?a to ?b and ?len is asked for, then we >> will >> have two possible solutions that differ in the value assigned to ? >> len. >> If no such value is required, then we get only the match of ?a ?b. > > Actually, I think this complexity (returning all paths between two > nodes) is exactly why much of the group is reluctant to pursue > variable paths and path lengths. At least, it's definitely why I > don't want to pursue that at this point. +1 I really can't see us implementing it, if it's that complex. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, 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, 24 November 2009 17:08:38 UTC