- From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:04:43 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABdcz9EYSHEYqYe5rgXyE9wpjp9DLD3L4vPb=icK04r1SXcK1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Dear all, I have uploaded a new version that contains the changes suggested by Andy. cheers, Carlos 2011/7/26 Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> > > > On 25/07/11 12:35, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've been working in dividing the Fed extension semantics section in >> two, one for SERVICE and another one for SERVICE VAR. I just added new >> semantics definition for SERVICE VAR, but now, in that part I do not >> know how to specify that when doing SERVICE ?X, ?X may be still not >> bounded and a query to all possible values may happen. Any idea? >> > > Section 2.3 talks about SERVICE ?var as an optional feature and the > document has quite a lot of machinary that drfines it (boundedness > condition, evaluation semantics, strongly bounded variable, service > safeness). > > I'd like to suggest a different approach which is to describe it (sec 2.3 - > and it's would be marked "Informative"), provide some guidance text as to > what it might do, and then not mention it in the definition section. The > guidance text would include some conditions but done in language and not be > exhaustive. > > Put this section after the formal definition (currently sec 3), before > "conformance". Section 4 (Grammar) can be removed as it is in the query doc > already (I thought we'd already decided to do that). > > This section could include the structure that it's a loop over the possible > values of the variable, and the results unioned together. c.f. GRAPH ?var > > Define SILENT to mean it applies to each invocation, so failure of one > invovation does not fail the entire SERVICE ?var > > The determination of the possible values of the variable is the part left > undefined. > > Don't define "Strongly bound variable" or "Service safeness" -- we are > going to keep it informative and they make it too much like a formal > definition after all.. > > Rough idea: > """ > A SERVICE clause involving a variable is executed as a series of separate > invocations of SPARQL query services. The results of each invocation are > combined using union > > <insert something like the defn box "Evaluation of a Service Pattern with > Variable" here> > > The query engine must determine the possible target SPARQL query services. > > The exact mechanism for doing this is not defined in this document. > > It must be done in a way that is compatible with the rest of the query > results, such as constraints on variables from other graph pattern matching > in the query. Execution order may also be used to determine the list of > services to to be tried. > """ > > I don't think we can include a formal definition and argue it's left open. > > Andy > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-rdf-dawg/** > 2011JulSep/0051.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JulSep/0051.html> > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 20:05:45 UTC