- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:35:48 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Apr/0010.html from Stephen Allen <sallen@apache.org> On 11/04/12 09:09, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 10/04/12 20:34, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> a >> >> On 10/04/12 17:01, Birte Glimm wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> since I was picked as the victim for handling AD-1 and AH-1, here's my >>> attempt: >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:AH-1 >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:AD-1 >>> >>> In particular for AH-1 I would like some feedback for my arguments of >>> why changing the BINDINGS semantics as suggested is problematic. >> >> In reverse order: >> >> ** http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:AH-1 >> >> +1 >> >> The technical reason is that what is requested is that >> >> BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... } >> BINDINGS ( ?y ) { ... } >> >> be the cross product (?x, ?y) but then what's >> >> BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... } >> BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... } >> >> and generalise for more than one variable. > > Overnight thinking: > > If BINDINGS are allowed in groups, this just works out. > > The confusion point of > > BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... } > BINDINGS ( ?x ) { ... } > > is probably the empty (multi) set as I'd guess the normal writer is > going to write two different (no value in common) sets. The join of > different values for ?x being empty. > > BINDINGS ( ?x ?y ) { ... } > BINDINGS ( ?x ?z ) { ... } > > is chaotic but explainable, maybe even sensible. > > Andy >
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:36:27 UTC