W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-dev@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: Proposed updates to the SPARQL 1.1 test suite

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:55:35 -0700
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, public-rdf-tests@w3.org, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <ef938a4c-3a3e-dab6-7b68-60489c5399f7@gmail.com>
It's actually quite hard to come up with an example that is not problematic in
some way, i.e., not going beyond the definition of the SPARQL algebra and not
having the possibility of double substitution and not being implemented
differently than the definition and not producing different results in
different implementations.

peter


On 06/21/2016 07:31 AM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> Oh - I had missed that this one was problematic. Yes I agree this is a
> non-expert level query which should have clear semantics.
> 
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> SELECT ?x WHERE { ?x :p :b .
>>                  FILTER EXISTS { SELECT ?x WHERE { ?x :q :d . } } }
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 16:56:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 June 2016 16:56:11 UTC