Andy,

Although this is perhaps a matter of taste, I discussed this issue with a 
few smart people here who all intuitively assumed that 
unionDefaultGraph=true would automatically merge graphUri2 into the 
default graph even if explicitly defined as in the following query:

FROM <graphUri1>
FROM NAMED <graphUri2>

The unionDefaulGraph parameter should be treated as part of the query 
semantics and you are simply overruling it with your implementation. That 
there is a way to formulate the same semantics is irrelevant. It adds 
complexity when clients use FROM/FROM NAMED and defaultUnionGraph=true

Btw, the exact behavior of these clauses in the context of 
defaultUnionGraph seems to be notably absent in the spec. That is too bad

Simon

PS: my mail clients adds the sender automatically in cc. I agree that it 
is annoying and will try to recall removing it, but at the same time, I 
have had countless cases were you cc-ed me in exactly the same way. 



From:
Andy Seaborne <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Date:
08/24/2012 11:14 AM
Subject:
Re: mixing FROM and FROM NAMED with unionDefaultGraph=true



On 24/08/12 16:06, Simon Helsen wrote:
> I agree with your statements below, but where it becomes
> incomprehensible for end-users is the following:
>
> case 1):
>
> FROM <graphUri1>
> FROM <graphUri2>
>
> everyone agrees that the default graph is the merge of graphUri1 and
> graphUri2 (unionDefaultGraph plays no role since no named graphs are
> defined)
>
> FROM <graphUri1>
> FROM NAMED <graphUri2>
>
> in this case, I woudl expect the default graph to be just graphUri1,
> unless unionDefaultGraph=true, in which case the explicitly named
> graphUri2 has to be merged into it. Don't you agree that any other
> behavior becomes really difficult to follow for end-users?

No.

The query asked for default graph to be <graphUri1>.  That is what it 
gets.

Why should unionDefaultGraph have any influence on the dataset to query?

If you want the alternative, ask for it:

FROM <graphUri1>
FROM <graphUri2>
FROM NAMED <graphUri2>

                 Andy

(you don't need to cc me on emails to dev@)

>
> Simon



Reply via email to