- 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