- 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
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