- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:30:20 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 8 Mar 2010, at 16:02, Andy Seaborne wrote: ... >>> An alternative is, >>> >>> ----------- >>> | x | C | >>> =========== >>> | :x1 | 3 | >>> | :x2 | 9 | >>> | :x3 | | >>> | :x4 | | >>> ----------- >>> >>> which retains the group row (to distinguish from no key). >> >> Yes, I wrote that first, then changed it. I think that the version >> with >> the removed rows is closer to the rest of SPARQL, as error rows are >> removed in (sub-)queries. It's also possible to prevent this, in many >> cases at least, with creative use of COALESCE, but I know you're >> not a fan. > > FILTERs remove errors but SELECT expressions just don't bind that > slot if the expression fails. > > SELECT (1/0 AS ?v) {} > > is one row, no bindings as currently spec'ed. Ah, OK, I missed that subtlety. In that case I'm fine with that behaviour. - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44 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 Monday, 8 March 2010 17:30:49 UTC