Re: Issue 1 - ToMultiSet

good afternoon;

> On 2016-07-07, at 14:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> […]
> I think that Andy's solution is acceptable as a starting point.
> 
> It might have been better to have had ToMultiSet in the Graph Pattern column
> of the table, but even though ToMultiSet is not really a solution modifier and
> thus should be in the Graph Pattern column.  However, most errata should be
> about making the smallest change required to fix a problem, and Andy's
> suggested errata does this.
> 
> However, Andy's suggested errata is not sufficient because multisets also need
> to be allowed as Graph Patterns.  Multisets show up in the SPARQL algebra as
> the translation on inline data and thus need to be accommodated as well.
> 
> 
> So I suggest
> 
> Draft:
> 
> [[
> query-errata-N:
> 
> "Section 18.2 Translation to the SPARQL Algebra" intro (end):
> 
> ToMultiSet can be used where a graph pattern is mentioned below because the
> outcome of evaluating a graph pattern is a multiset.
> 
> Multisets of solution mappings are elements of the SPARQL algebra.  Multisets
> of solution mappings count as graph patterns.
> ]]
> 
> 
> I note that this problem does not just affect EXISTS, but affects just about
> every construct because of the wording
> 
> P, P1, P2 : graph patterns
> 
> near the beginning of 18.6.
> 
> peter
> 
> PS:  I do note that the translation to the SPARQL algebra is defined in a
> somewhat sloppy manner that makes it hard to determine exactly what is
> supposed to result.  I don't think that there are any problems that arise from
> this sloppiness but the translation needs some attention if there ever is a
> next version of SPARQL.
> 


-1

what is the concrete benefit of the “add a note” approach, when not putting the entry in the table puts the reader in the position to need to correlate information at different locations in the document?

best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com