- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:13:11 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 11/06/12 21:41, Matthew Perry wrote: > Thanks Greg. That makes sense, and I see that in the definition now, but > some of the text in the doc may be a bit misleading: > > "There is also a "zero or one" connectivity property path operator, ?." > ... "Such connectivity matching does not introduce duplicates (it does > not incorporate any count of the number of ways the connection can be > made) even if the repeated path itself would otherwise result in > duplicates." > > I know we already approved all of this stuff, so I'm not suggesting that > we change anything at this point. The quoted text is right, and the definitions evaluates to a set (and so the test is wrong ... as was some of my code). Andy > Cheers, > Matt > > On 6/11/2012 3:44 PM, Gregory Williams wrote: >> On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Matthew Perry wrote: >> >>> I think property path test pp28 may have an error. If '?' is a >>> connectivity operator, then how is :z in the result twice? >> '?' isn't just a connectivity operator -- it just adds results (the >> zero-length path results) to the path it is applied to (in this case, >> ':p/:p'). And since :p/:p just expands to a BGP, you get the doubled >> results since :z can be reached twice from :a (through either :b or :c). >> >> .greg >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 09:34:10 UTC