Re: Text about SPARQL-star built-in functions ready

James,

On 05/03/2021 02:26, James Anderson wrote:
>
>> those are fair questions, but I don't see how their answer depends on the definition of the TRIPLE() function...
>>
>> How is this different from asking the same questions about (for example):
>>
>> select (count(distinct ?t1) as ?t1Count)
>>           (count(distinct ?t2) as ?t2Count)
>> where {
>>   graph ?g {
>>     bind ( strdt("foo", ?g) as ?t1)
>>     bind ( strdt("foo", <>) as ?t1)
>>
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> ?
> because this question, immediately above, relates terms the nature of which does not change when they are comprised by statements which appear in graphs while the earlier questions concerns terms which may.

Thanks for this clarification, I think we are touching the core of our 
misunderstanding here.

What makes you think that the nature of an embedded triple may change 
when they are comprised by statements which appear in graphs? (if I 
parse your sentence above correctly...)

I personally don't consider that its nature is impacted in anyway by its 
surrounding asserted triples -- and I don't see what in the current 
state of the spec may give this impression.

More concretely, consider the 3 following graphs:

G1:

   << :bob :is :stupid >> :accordingTo :alice.
   :bob :is :smart.

G2:

   << :bob :is :stupid >> :accordingTo :alice.
   :bob :is :stupid.

G3:

   << :bob :is :stupid >> :accordingTo :alice.

In all these graphs, the term << :bob :is :stupid >> is exactly the same 
term, just like :alice is exactly the same term in all 3 graphs. Neither 
its identity nor its nature is altered by the surrounding (asserted) 
triples, if any.

For that matter, it is also still the same term in the following datasets:

D1:

     :g1 { << :bob :is :stupid >> :acordingTo :alice. }
     :bob :is :stupid.

D1:

     :g2 {
         << :bob :is :stupid >> :acordingTo :alice.
         :bob :is :stupid.
     }


> best regards, from berlin
>
>