ulting from the risks inherent to the electronic
transmission of messages.
From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Sent: Thursday 25 November 2021 7:31 PM
To: 'topbraid-users@googlegroups.com'
mailto:topbraid-users@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: RE: [topbraid-users] sparql question
Yes it was ☹
Sti
you are
> requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no
> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it
> and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the
> electronic transmission of messages.
>
>
onic
transmission of messages.
From: Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Sent: Thursday 25 November 2021 7:31 PM
To: 'topbraid-users@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: [topbraid-users] sparql question
Yes it was ☹
Still a lot of (now changed) results that I have to check….
Can I derive that it should wor
ind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic
transmission of messages.
From: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of Holger Knublauch
Sent: Thursday 25 November 2021 1:53 AM
To: topbraid-users@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] sparql question
Is this a typo ?bps
Is this a typo ?bpsStartkilometrering vs ?bpsStartKilometrering
(upper-case K) ?
Holger
On 2021-11-25 6:56 am, 'Bohms, H.M. (Michel)' via TopBraid Suite Users
wrote:
When I want to select attributes from different classes (monster &
meting) that share the value of another attribute (here
its finding and understanding those system functions that are perhaps most
useful, as they do things you cant easily do otherwise. Developers may
also create their own functions - and functions to support syncing
different views of derived data across different graphs is something that
is
On 20/05/2020 11:40, Rob Atkinson wrote:
This is a general challenge with EDG - and in the Semantic Web as a
whole AFAICT
We have open world semantics, but in reality all operations are done
over some graph closure. Systems make private, hidden, decisions about
how to bound such graph
> On 20 May 2020, at 02:40, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> You absolutely need to understand the scope of a function or query before you
> can use it, and there are only hints scattered through documents as to what
> they may be. As a result I always dive into the code of every element to see
>
This is a general challenge with EDG - and in the Semantic Web as a whole
AFAICT
We have open world semantics, but in reality all operations are done over
some graph closure. Systems make private, hidden, decisions about how to
bound such graph closures. You absolutely need to understand the
This is from the TBC Help page for SPARQL Property functions:
SPARQL Property Functions
- tops:statementDefinedIn
- *Syntax:* (?subject ?predicate ?object) tops:statementDefinedIn
?baseURI
- *Description:* Returns the defining ontology base URI for a given
statement.
Nicolae; The semantics of BIND and basic graph patterns are a bit
confusing, and you've noted that parts of the spec is open to
interpretation. The Jena ARQ engine TopBraid uses will interpret
the graph patterns inside-out, which means the GRAPH ?egDataGraph {}
is
11 matches
Mail list logo
