Re: Update of distiller (after minutes of 2008-04-03)

Hi Ivan,

>  2. I have removed the part of the code that checked the 'superfluous'
> triples. (Updating the code is easier than originally doing it; it just
> means that return values are ignored, well, not even generated. The
> structure of the processing steps remain the same otherwise...)

That's right. I'd like to echo your point if I may, since there have
been some misconceptions that this aspect of the processing rules made
things more complicated.

I've been trying to emphasise on the list and in the telecons that the
'recursive' nature of the rules had to be changed as part of an
attempt to solve a completely different set of problems, and removing
'bnode-only' triples was not the goal.

It just so happened that when making thes changes,  I discovered that
if I was to add a flag that said 'we created some triples here' in the
recursive phase, I could inhibit the generation of 'bnode-only'
triples.

But as you say, 'unremoving' those triples is nothing more than
getting rid of that flag, so it doesn't gain anything in terms of the
processing complexity.

So although on the telecon I supported 'unremoving' those triples, it
wasn't because of any issue with the complexity of implementation,
since as you point out, nothing really changes; it was because if
people don't mind these 'Seinfeld triples' being in the output graph,
why bother removing them?

(I always assumed people would object. :))

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.x-port.net | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  x-port.net Ltd. is registered in England and Wales, number 03730711
  The registered office is at:

    2nd Floor
    Titchfield House
    69-85 Tabernacle Street
    London
    EC2A 4RR

Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 10:49:29 UTC