- From: Toni Schindler <toni.schindler@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:08:13 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-tests@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACePU+VXR7tK3u7v6pG1eUr89L3YZ1SmDw2226tgNmY0YGaZaA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Gregg. This has been resolved [1]; my understanding of "matching a basic graph pattern" was wrong. Toni [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-dev/2017AprJun/0008.html 2017-05-30 20:16 GMT+02:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>: > Hi Toni, for questions about how SPARQL should be have, you may want to > try public-sparql-dev@w3.org or even Stack Exchange. Certainly, if it is > determined that a test case needs to be updated, this is the appropriate > forum. > > Gregg Kellogg > gregg@greggkellogg.net > > On May 30, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Toni Schindler <toni.schindler@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm Toni. I've been reading the RDF and SPARQL standards for a while and > I'm working on an implementation at Wolfram. > I came across a test that seems wrong, given my current understanding of > basic graph pattern matching. > Consider the query [1] > > WHERE { > ?a :str ?s1 . > ?b :str ?s2 . > FILTER (?a = :s1 || ?a = :s3) > FILTER (?b = :s1 || ?b = :s3) > } > > with data [2] > > ... > :s1 :str "foo" . > :s2 :str "bar"@en . > :s3 :str "BAZ" . > ... > > and the result [3] expecting four solutions, including for instance > ?s1 -> "BAZ", ?s2 -> "BAZ", ... > > However, the data graph does not contain a length-2 subgraph of the form > {... ... "BAZ". ... ... "BAZ"}. With the current query there is only one > matching subgraph (after filtering), and two ways to bind variables in > this subgraph, giving two solutions. > There would be four solutions if the query were updated to > > WHERE { > { ?a :str ?s1 . } > { ?b :str ?s2 . } > ... > } > > so that there are two length-1 graph patterns to be matched (each > effectively with two solutions when taking into account the filters), > whose solutions are joined (giving four solutions, after filtering). > > What do you think? Should the test be updated? Did I misunderstand > something? > > Toni > > [1] > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/blob/gh-pages/sparql11/ > data-sparql11/functions/bnode01.rq > [2] > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/blob/gh-pages/sparql11/ > data-sparql11/functions/data.ttl > [3] > https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/blob/gh-pages/sparql11/ > data-sparql11/functions/bnode01.srx > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2017 11:08:47 UTC