I fear that the design is becoming over complex. We used to have two kinds of repetitions: + * without loop in the path (except first step of + ...) {n,m} with loop in the path Now we would have three kinds of repetitions: + * without loop, without duplicate {+} {*} without loop, with duplicate {n,m} with loop with duplicate In addition, {} notation is (in general) used for set but {+} enables duplicates so it is misleading In addition {n,m} and {+} do not behave the same with loops, so it is not uniform (By the way, our experience in my team is that loops in {n,m} are not welcome because very often {1,n} is used to limit the length of paths wrt +, but unfortunately paths are then trapped into loops (use case with symmetric relation, e.g. foaf:knows{1,5})) Concerning distinct, I am able to prototype distinct as a global operator on path expression: ?x distinct(path) ?y I would support this design. OlivierReceived on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 13:45:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:10 UTC