- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:55:13 +0100
- To: Olivier Corby <olivier.corby@inria.fr>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 19/04/11 08:39, Olivier Corby wrote: >>> In addition, what is the rationale for matching "IRIs explicitly given >>> as endpoints of the path pattern" ? >> >> Originally from: >> >> ?x rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf* <T> . >> --------- >> project ?x >> ?x rdf:type ?v . ?v rdfs:subClassOf* <T> . >> >> so if there is no >> >> <a> rdfs:subClassOf* <T> . >> >> this works when done in either order: >> >> ?x rdf:type ?v . ?v rdfs:subClassOf* <T> . >> or >> ?v rdfs:subClassOf* <T> . ?x rdf:type ?v . > > In the example above, ?x rdf:type <T> must be in the graph and hence <T> > is in the graph. > But my question was about URI that are *not present* in the graph (like > in pp15) : what is the design rationale for this exception to SPARQL > graph pattern matching ? In a string regexp: "a*" matches "bbbbbb" The analogy is not perfect but it is illustrative. The subproperty case: ?p rdfs:subPropertyOf <P> ?s ?p ?o . means <P> is not usually a subject or object in the graph. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 07:55:52 UTC