Re: property paths three more test cases pp13, pp14, pp15

catching up...
Thanks for the explanations given the said below, did you update pp16 and/or shall we add your example as additional test case? 

best,
Axel

On 21 Dec 2010, at 21:37, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> On 21/12/10 10:31, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 20/12/10 17:23, Axel Polleres wrote:
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> I added a new use case pp16 along the lines you suggest, see details
> >> below.
> >>
> >> On 20 Dec 2010, at 16:46, Steve Harris wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think pp14 would be more enlightening if the pp14.ttl included a
> >>> disconnected foaf:knows graph, and some triples using another
> >>> predicate. Something like:
> >>>
> >>> @prefix :<http://example.org/> .
> >>> @prefix foaf:<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
> >>>
> >>> :a foaf:knows :b .
> >>> :b foaf:knows :c .
> >>> :d foaf:knows :e .
> >>> :f foaf:name "test" .
> >>> :a foaf:homepage :h .
> >>>
> >>> Even after Axel's proposed changes I find the wording a bit
> >>> impenetrable, though admittedly I haven't had time to study the algebra.
> >>>
> >>> Axel, can you tell mw what results you'd expect from pp14.rq with
> >>> that data?
> >>>
> >>
> >> your data returns, according to my understanding of the algebra:
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >> | X | Y |
> >> ===================
> >> | :a | :a |
> >> | :a | :b |
> >> | :a | :c |
> >> | :b | :b |
> >> | :b | :c |
> >> | :c | :c |
> >> | :d | :d |
> >> | :d | :e |
> >> | :e | :e |
> >> | :f | :f |
> >> | :h | :h |
> >> | "test" | "test" |
> >> -------------------
> >>
> >> I would, BTW, rather keep the simple use case pp14 "as is", and added
> >> a more complex one having your extension, as well as
> >> duplicate paths and cycles as a separate new use case:
> >>
> >> @prefix :<http://example.org/> .
> >> @prefix foaf:<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
> >>
> >> :a foaf:knows :b .
> >> :b foaf:knows :c .
> >> :a foaf:knows :c .<-- duplicate path
> >> :d foaf:knows :e .
> >> :e foaf:knows :f .
> >> :f foaf:knows :e .<-- cycle
> >> :f foaf:name "test" .
> >> :a foaf:homepage :h .
> >>
> >> I am not sure about the cycle handling ATM, so I can only give the
> >> result from ARQ (which is what I checked in under pp16.srx for now):
> >
> > Looks like a bug to me.
> >
> > I want to rewrite the path evaluation to follow the spec - it predates
> > the spec at the moment.
> >
> > Andy
> 
> Working through a cut down example, I seem to get the right answers:
> 
> == Data
> 
> @prefix : <http://example.org/> .
> @prefix foaf:   <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
> 
> :d foaf:knows :e .
> :e foaf:knows :f .
> :f foaf:knows :e .
> 
> == Query
> SELECT * { ?x foaf:knows* ?y }
> 
> Write out * as {0} UNION + and label the branches:
> 
> PREFIX :          <http://example.org/>
> PREFIX foaf:    <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
> 
> SELECT *
> {
>    { BIND ("0" as ?A) ?x foaf:knows{0} ?y . }
>    UNION
>    { BIND ("+" as ?A) ?x  foaf:knows+ ?y . }
> }
> 
> 
> == Result
> -----------------
> | A   | x  | y  |
> =================
> | "0" | :d | :d |
> | "0" | :f | :f |
> | "0" | :e | :e |
> | "+" | :d | :e |
> | "+" | :d | :f |
> | "+" | :d | :e |
> | "+" | :f | :e |
> | "+" | :f | :f |
> | "+" | :e | :f |
> | "+" | :e | :e |
> -----------------
> 
> which explains the (:e, :e) duplicate, once due to {0} and once due to +
> 
> The 2 ("+", :d, :e) is an effect of how we control cycles by detecting
> triples traversed, not node checking.
> 
> == Data
> :d foaf:knows :e . # T1
> :e foaf:knows :f . # T2
> :f foaf:knows :e . # T3
> 
>  From d:
> 
> Step 1: T1 => adds the (:d, :e) pair
> then
> Step 2: ->T2->T3 => adds the (:d, :e) pair
> 
> In step2 , it stops because T2 would be traversed again.  The path
> T1->T2->T3 only crossed triples once, but finds (:d, :e) twice in the
> process. There are two ways that :d is connected to :e (1-step and
> 3-step paths).
> 
> If distinct is added then "node tracking answers == triple tracking
> answers" (I think :-)
> 
> Triple tracking causes paths to be found (scope later for path variables
> and test on them), not nodes visited.
> 
>         Andy
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 12:55:55 UTC