- From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:32:40 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABdcz9Ho70zx-+ebEZzF7+cuzzbGvLR+RGq=x8p6nkCa-MtBEg@mail.gmail.com>
I updated the fed document with the changes you sugested. Regarding the BINDINGS section I completed it a bit more with the queries missing. Regarding the SERVICE VAR section I added a bit more of text. Hope it is clearer now. Carlos 2011/8/1 Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> > I checked the changes in Fed-Query... > > > On 27 Jul 2011, at 22:04, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > > sorry Axel, I overlooked the email. I uploaded a new version with your > example. It is much clearer. I added BINDINGS ?s { (:b) (:c) } > > > > Hmmm, I don't see a BINDINGS query in the current draft... > here are my detailed comments on Section 2.4 and Section 4: > > > Section 2.4 > ----------- > > * > "This query, on the data above using BINDINGS, has three solutions: > > Query Result:" > > --(That query doesn't use BINDINGS...)--> > > " > This query, on the data above, has three solutions: > " > > * > > " > Next, dispatch a constrained query with the solutions for ?s. > > Query: > > PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> > SELECT ?s ?o > { > ?s a foaf:Person > SERVICE <http://example.org/sparql> {?s foaf:knows ?o } > } > > This query, on the data above using BINDINGS, has two solutions: > > [...] > " > > --(this is where the BINDINGS query is missing)--> > > " > Next, the query planner, dispatches a constrained query with the these > solutions for ?s to the external service endpoint <tt> > http://example.org/sparql</tt>, using a BINDINGS clause. > > Query: > > PREFIX : <http://example.org/> > PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> > SELECT * {?s foaf:knows ?o } BINDINGS ?s { (:a) (:b) (:c) } > > This query, has the expected two solutions to the overall query: > > [...] > " > > > Section 4: > ---------- > > * > "We assume the following data on SPARQL endpoints (or graphs) about various > projects in certain subject categories in the local default graph: " > > - better like this? -> > > "We assume the following data on various projects that contains information > about SPARQL endpoints where data about these projects (using the DOAP > vocabulary) can be queried from:" > > * > "A SERVICE or GRAPH 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:" > --> > A SERVICE or GRAPH clause involving a variable can be executed as a series > of separate invocations of SPARQL query services. The results of each > invocation are combined using union:" > > "is executed sounds like we are prescribing a particular implementation?" > > * > I think this section should - after the algebra is introduced - get back > to the example and show how it is mapped to the algebra. > It seems that this is not trivial to define, particularly, if a query has > more than one service request with variables. I would expect some informal > text at least explaining something along the lines of "if the patterns can > be reordered in a way such that respective bindings can be propagated" or > alike. As it stands, I am afraid this section is too vague, even if it is > marked as informative. > > > Axel >
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 20:33:25 UTC