- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:19:41 +0000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Peter,
On 09/12/16 02:46, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
...
> The SPARQL definition here uses the following SPARQL query
>
> SELECT DISTINCT $this ?value
> WHERE {
> $this ex:p ?value .
> FILTER NOT EXISTS
> { $value rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf* $class . }
> }
>
> with this pre-bound to ex:n and class pre-bound to ex:c.
>
> According to the SHACL document
> evaluating this SPARQL query will produce a non-empty solution sequence,
> namely
> { { (this, ex:m), (value,ex:l) } }
> because
> $this ex:p ?value .
> will produce the set of solutions
> { { (this, ex:n), (value,ex:m) } ,
> { (this, ex:m), (value,ex:l) } }
I don't follow this part.
On just the " $this ex:p ?value ." pattern, why, when ?this=ex:n, is the
second solution present?
I think there is only one match. { { (this, ex:n), (value,ex:m) } }
and then the overall result is zero rows.
For both proposal-A and proposal-B used for pre-binding, that seems to
be the case. $this is restricted before the FILTER is applied.
(NB I acknowledge that Proposal-A is not proposed for pre-binding and
wasn't suggested as such)
Andy
Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 10:20:17 UTC