- From: Roland Stühmer <mail@roland-stuehmer.de>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:17:30 +0100
- To: "public-rsp@w3.org" <public-rsp@w3.org>
Hello Robin, all! Am 15.12.2014 um 08:46 schrieb Robin Keskisärkkä: > Thanks for the response Emanuele. Just to clarify, since only one triple > is used in each graph pattern with a BEGIN AT. I assume we regard the > individual triples in each graph to be associated with the specific > timestamps of the originally streamed graph, so that a graph can be > referenced using it's associated timestamp, e.g.: > { ?somebody e:enters ?poi; g:drunk "false"} BEGIN AT ?t > expresses that "somebody" entered "poi" and was at the same point in > time not "drunk" within the same window? 'Not "drunk" within the same window' is true but 'Not "drunk" at the same point in time' is not: 1.: It is reasonable to require that triples are associated with graphs and as such are timestamped (like graphs are). 2.: However, there can be cases a triple e.g. { ?somebody e:enters ?poi } could result from several graphs e.g. in a time window. Then we need a way to uniquely select/associate one graph for such a triple. (An example would be to use the triple with the *newest* graph for the BEGIN/END operators.) There is no conclusion here. However, I think we need a better semantics or re-think those graph-oriented operators. Roland.
Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 10:17:54 UTC