- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:15:09 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 14 Sep 2010, at 10:44, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 14/09/10 09:58, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > As for ACTION-304 I started a formal definition of "potentially bound" variable at
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Potentially_bound
> >
> > this is not finished, but just to get the direction clear, based on that we can hopefully redefine "*".
>
> Added MINUS (only the LHS),
makes sense.
> SERVICE
As for SERVICE ?v don't we need the variable to be bound somewhere else, i.e. if the variable only appears here, can it really be bound?
> and GROUP BY (assuming name
> introduction in GROUP BY)
I changed this to
{ P1 } GROUP BY ...
Assuming that syntactically, the GROUP BY claus alone is not a GRAPH
Pattern.
I also added HAVING.
>
> The other definitions need to work with GROUP BY which hides the non-key
> variables variables. To do this, it would seem easier to define the
> concept recursively, not declaratively.
my idea was to define it recusrively over the syntax
best,
Axel
>
> BINDINGS?
>
> Andy
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:15:47 UTC