- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:31:26 +0000
- To: "Carlos Buil Aranda" <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Similar to Lee, the definition in 3.2 honestly doesn't make much sense to me. What is ep(i) ? you define eval(D(G), ep(i)) as D[i] ep(i) is not defined, but I assume it shall return a graph? but then in the next definition you call eval(D(ep(i)), P_1) either there's some overloading on the function ep() ongoing here, or I don't understand what's actually going on here. Then you write "if i in dom(ep)" where dom(ep) is not defined. For now, I am more leaning towards dropping 3.2 and getting 3.1 straight, following the comments we gave. best, Axel On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:12, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > On 28/02/2011 20:44, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > My original comment was asking how 4.1 and 4.3 are related. I'm still > > not sure I understand; you seem to say that they are alternatives for > > one another, but I don't see that. > > > > 4.1 deals with the translation from grammar to algebra and then > > evaluation of algebra. I'm not sure what 4.3 is saying; for instance, > > it uses ep(i) and then defines it, but I can't seem to make sense of > > the use and definition of it. > > > > Also, whereas the evaluation algorithm in 4.1 (3.1 now) talks about > > invoking the SPARQL protocol (which makes sense to me), the definition > > in 4.3 (3.2 now) doesn't seem to say anything about how a pattern gets > > evaluated against a remote endpoint. So as it stands now, if they > > _are_ alternatives, I'd prefer to remove 3.2 and stick with 3.1, while > > cleaning up 3.1 as per my comments in the original review. > 3.1 and 3.2 are alternatives. What I say in 3.2 is that a pattern P is > evaluated in the default graph. If that pattern P is of the form SERVICE > i {P1} where i is a URI, then P1 is evaluated in the graph that is > pointed by the function ep(i). What ep(i) does is to get the graph > pointed by i. So in the end, the evaluation of SERVICE is the evaluation > of its inner pattern in a graph pointed by i, like in the query > document, but changing the default graph. > > I do not know if explained myself? these are two proposals, in the end I > will leave only one of them in final document. > > Carlos >
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 10:48:24 UTC