Re: SPARQL 1.1. BINDINGS + FILTER

Hi,

Looks good! Thanks for the heads up.

Just one question. What would happen if the query were posed as follows:

SELECT *
WHERE {
  BIND (0 AS ?dayID)
  VALUES (?dayID ?dayName) {
   (0 "Sunday"@en)
   (1 "Monday"@en)
   (2 "Tuesday"@en)
   (3 "Wednesday"@en)
   (4 "Thursday"@en)
   (5 "Friday"@en)
   (6 "Saturday"@en)
  }
}

...in other words, a variable used for VALUES is bound outside of the 
scope of the VALUES{} block.

Would this give rise to an "already bound exception", or would a join 
take place?

Cheers,
Aidan

On 02/05/2012 11:17, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Hi guys,
> cc: public-sparql-dev
>
> I thought you might like to know what's going on:
>
> The WG hasn't completed it's discussion yet but the working proposal is:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0076.html
> and thread except that the word DATA will be VALUES.
>
> Note the slight change in syntax to make the one variable/several
> variables cases a little clearer.
>
> For the filter use cases, the setting of variables needs to move into a
> {} block for scoping reasons.
>
> so:
>
> SELECT *
> {
> VALUES ?x { :x1 :x2 }
> ?x rdfs:label ?label .
> }
>
> SELECT *
> WHERE {
> VALUES (?dayIDCheck ?dayName) {
> (0 "Sunday"@en)
> (1 "Monday"@en)
> (2 "Tuesday"@en)
> (3 "Wednesday"@en)
> (4 "Thursday"@en)
> (5 "Friday"@en)
> (6 "Saturday"@en)
> BIND (0 AS ?dayID)
> FILTER (?dayIDCheck = ?dayID)
> }
>
> Outstanding issues include exactly what happens to BINDINGS at the end
> of a query - one proposal to the group is to keep the concept (for the
> federated query use case) but adopt the same word/syntax as VALUES.
>
> Andy
>
> On 02/05/12 10:49, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just wanted to let you know that we (Kasabi/Talis) have a similar use
>> case to [1] and would benefit from BINDINGS as a placeholder mechanism
>> for parametrised queries, à la:
>>
>> [[[
>> SELECT ?person WHERE {
>> ?person ex:name ?name .
>> FILTER(REGEX(?name, ?value))
>> }
>> BINDINGS ?value {('John')}
>> ]]]
>>
>>
>> (We don't need a formal response, just wanted to report the use case.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Benji
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Mar/0018.html
>>
>>
>>

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:19:46 UTC