Re: is this query in scope for sparql-exists

good morning;

> On 2016-09-27, at 07:39, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote:
> 
> Questions:
> with my example (1) below:
> A) is this an example of the defect that this group is addressing
> B) is my workaround (3) appropriate:
>    In particular, I would like this to be as ‘standards conferment’/interoperable as possible, given a bug in the spec.
> […]
> 
> 
> I have had an issue with the scope of the ?MDxReport_B variable in the following double negation (for all, expressed, as NOT EXISTS NOT)

1. is it possible to reduce the query from 

> 
> SELECT *
> WHERE {
>   ?Therapy_A rdf:type foo:Therapy .
>   ?MDxReport_B rdf:type foo:fooMolecularResultsReport .
>   ?MDxReport_B foo:hasPatient ?Patient_A .
> 
>   ?Patient_A rdf:type foo:Patient .
>   ?MDxReport_B foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene $j__4 .
>   ?Therapy_A foo:hasGeneEligibilityCriteria/foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene  $j__4
>   FILTER NOT EXISTS { 
>     ?hasGeneEligibilityCriteria_A rdf:type foo:GeneEligibilityCriteria .
>     ?Therapy_A foo:hasGeneEligibilityCriteria ?hasGeneEligibilityCriteria_A .
>     ?hasGeneEligibilityCriteria_A foo:isRequiredCriteria True .
>     ?hasGeneEligibilityCriteria_A foo:criteriaType 'Inclusion'
>     FILTER NOT EXISTS { 
>       ?MDxReport_B foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene $j__5 .
>       ?hasGeneEligibilityCriteria_A foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene  $j__5
>     }
>   }
>   }
> 

to the following, which involves just the relations among the report, the therapy and the criteria?

SELECT *
WHERE {
  ?MDxReport_B foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene $j__4 .
  ?Therapy_A foo:hasGeneEligibilityCriteria/foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene  $j__4
  FILTER NOT EXISTS { 
    ?Therapy_A foo:hasGeneEligibilityCriteria ?hasGeneEligibilityCriteria_A .
    FILTER NOT EXISTS { 
      ?MDxReport_B foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene $j__5 .
      ?hasGeneEligibilityCriteria_A foo:hasNegativeFinding/foo:gene  $j__5
    }
  }
  }

2. did you observe that any reference to ?MDxReport_B  - that is, not just a type constraint, sufficed to mitigate the issue?

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