W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Re: Scope of blank nodes in SPARQL?

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:20:53 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111019132051.GE13670@w3.org>
* Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> [2011-10-18 19:20+0100]
> On 18/10/11 16:20, Alex Hall wrote:
> ...
> >Now, a follow-up question:
> >
> >Given a store containing two graphs with the following statements:
> >
> ><g1> = { _:s <p1> "foo". }
> ><g2> = { _:s <p2> "bar". }
> >
> >Assume that _:s here denotes the same blank node shared between the
> >graphs (e.g. was inserted into one graph using an INSERT operation as
> >illustrated above).  This is a common situation in the case where <g2>
> >is an inference graph that holds entailed statements computed by
> >applying forward-chaining rules to <g1>.  How can I query the union of
> >those two graphs in a way that a variable can match the blank node in
> >both graphs?
> >
> >In other words, I'd like to do say something like:
> >
> >SELECT ?o1 ?o2
> >FROM <g1>
> >FROM <g2>
> >WHERE { ?s <p1> ?o1 . ?s <p2> ?o2 }
> >and find a single solution, { ?o1="foo", ?o2="bar" }.  I suspect that
> >many (most?) stores will give the result that I'm looking for in this
> >situation -- I know Mulgara will.  But strictly speaking, the default
> >graph for this query is found by taking the merge of all graphs
> >mentioned in a FROM clause, which implies renaming of shared blank
> >nodes.  In this case, I want the union of those graphs, not the merge;
> >is there any way of getting that without relying on store-specific
> >implementation details?

How about 

  SELECT ?o1 ?o2
  WHERE { GRAPH <g1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 }
          GRAPH <g2> { ?s <p2> ?o2 } }

? Currently, there is no official way to populate <g1>, <g2> as
described above, but if the RDF WG decided it were so, the SPARQL
query would work out of the box. Of course, the cost is fairly high in
that this makes all bnodes "told bnodes" via an exhaustive search for
bnodes common to multiple graphs.

> >I imagine that there are historical reasons why merge is specified here
> >and not union, but it would be really nice if stores had license to do a
> >union in the case where they have specific knowledge that a blank node
> >identifier shared between the graphs does in fact denote a common resource.
> >
> >-Alex
> Yes, it would be nice.  All the stores I know much about will
> maintain the sameness in the same situation.  SPARQL does define
> FROM-FROM as an RDF merge though, which keeps bNodes apart, but it's
> working at the level of simple entailment.
> Normally, the bNodes will have different internal identifiers just
> by being read in so something (some knowledge) made them the same.
> I don't know of a store that uses the same internal id in different
> graphs for different bNodes at the same time but it's quite possible
> there is one and it's not wrong (maybe keep each graph on disk in
> RDF/XML format).
> Once <g1> and <g2> are known to contain the same bNode (whatever
> that might mean) then I think we're in the territory of additional
> "specific knowledge", which is outside RDF simple entailment; RDF
> only talks about one graph anyway.  It's like doing smushing on the
> data or equating by inverse functional property - a level of
> entailment (a rather low level even if more than simple entailment)
> that provides more conclusions from the data.
> 	Andy

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 13:21:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC