- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:14:15 -0400
- To: Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 5/17/2010 8:03 AM, Olivier Corby wrote: > > PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-8 with the consensus that subqueries share the > same RDF > > dataset as their parent query, and that FROM and FROM NAMED clauses > are not > > permitted in subqueries. > > As I said in a previous post, I think there is an interaction between > graph and subquery patterns. Does the graph pattern apply to subquery: > > > graph ?g { > {select * where { ... }} > } > > > I think this is not obvious because we can consider that the subquery > creates a fresh new evaluation environment without graph ?g as current > graph. > > This interpretation is based on this case: > > graph ?g1 { > graph ?g2 { } > } > > In this example, graph ?g2 creates a new evaluation environment in which > graph ?g2 overloads/hides graph ?g1. We could have the same behavior > with subquery. > > I think that the recommendation should explicit the behavior of graph > pattern vs subquery. I agree. Do you have a preference for the behavior of this construct? Lee >
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 18:19:58 UTC