- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:02:46 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- CC: sparql Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B90BAA6.2050106@w3.org>
On 2010-3-4 15:53 , Andy Seaborne wrote: > In > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Feb/0018.html > > > Rob Vesse observes that "no duplicates" is at odds with the expansion of > a simple path (a term we have already decided to remove) into a triple > pattern because there is an implicit projection going on. > > {?x foaf:knows{2} ?y} > is not quite the same as > { ?x foaf:knows ?z . ?z foaf:knows ?y } > when there are acylic components/ > e.g.: > > :a foaf:knows :b . > :a foaf:knows :c . > :b foaf:knows :d . > :c foaf:knows :d . > > because ?z is projected away. > > We can specify either way: > > + emphasis that certain property paths are the same as the triple > expansion form, and not have the striuct no duplicates rule (this > reintroduces the simple property paths concept) or > > + note, and provide an example, that they are not exactly equivalent. > > I prefer the latter - keep the "no duplicates" situation. > So do I. As a user, who does not know about the algebra and such, having ?x/:a and ?y/:d to the {?x foaf:knows{2} ?y} seems like the natural answer... Ivan > Note this is related to "[TF-PP] cycles - simple or a walk" > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0455.html > > Andy > > Andy > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 08:02:35 UTC