Re: Issue-3 - Blank nodes substituted into BGPs act as variables

good afternoon;

> On 2016-07-14, at 12:57, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> On 07/14/2016 06:19 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> For issue 3, what the spec says and what users expect are different.
>> [...]
>> I'm not sure of the way to address this.
> [...]
>> 
>> Any other ideas?
>> 
>>   Andy
> 
> Both expectations and behaviour here are consistent with joining a
> single-element multiset of solution bindings to the unmodified BGP.  Given
> this, my view is that EXISTS should be defined in this way.
> 
> That is, the pattern that is evaluated for this EXISTS should be
> 
> Join( { { (?s, _:s1) } }, BGP(?s :p 1) )
> 
> instead of
> 
> BGP(_:s1 :p 1)

why is this it necessary to follow an indirect path?
why not, just admit, the process takes place on a data model rather than a lexical representation and leave it at that?



---
james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> | http://dydra.com <http://dydra.com/>