> On 2021-02-24, at 20:47:06, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2021 20:07, james anderson wrote:
> ...
>
>
> ASK is not special in its evaluation of patterns.
>
> In SELECT and more general path settings:
>
> What would the answer be? And how many? What if
On 23/02/2021 20:07, james anderson wrote:
...
ASK is not special in its evaluation of patterns.
In SELECT and more general path settings:
What would the answer be? And how many? What if there are DAGs?
why would one not interpret it analogous to
{ ?z + ?y }
What is the analogy?
> On 2021-02-23, at 17:37:52, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2021 15:44, james anderson wrote:
>>> On 2021-02-23, at 15:10:23, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/02/2021 15:31, james anderson wrote:
why did the authors exclude path variables when considering the
On 23/02/2021 15:44, james anderson wrote:
On 2021-02-23, at 15:10:23, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 22/02/2021 15:31, james anderson wrote:
why did the authors exclude path variables when considering the alternatives.
this formulation appears intuitive.
ASK { ?p+ }
Which is
> On 2021-02-23, at 15:10:23, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22/02/2021 15:31, james anderson wrote:
>> why did the authors exclude path variables when considering the alternatives.
>> this formulation appears intuitive.
>>ASK { ?p+ }
>
> Which is almost:
>
> ASK { (!<>)+ }
On 22/02/2021 15:31, james anderson wrote:
why did the authors exclude path variables when considering the alternatives.
this formulation appears intuitive.
ASK { ?p+ }
Which is almost:
ASK { (!<>)+ }
why was it rejected?
Time mostly.
discussions appear here and
why did the authors exclude path variables when considering the alternatives.
this formulation appears intuitive.
ASK { ?p+ }
why was it rejected?
discussions appear here and elsewhere as to the wildcard predicate expression
and its variants.
why was it not permitted as a direct
Thanks for the suggestion. There seems to be a RDF to Gremlin converter
too, so good to know this option.
On 12/02/2021 22.13, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
SPARQL is based on pattern matching, so path traversal is not its strong
point.
You might want to try a different language like Gremlin.
Minor but "*" -> "+"
On 12/02/2021 20:13, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
SPARQL is based on pattern matching, so path traversal is not its strong
point.
You might want to try a different language like Gremlin.
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 15.05, Mikael Pesonen
wrote:
Sorry meant of course to find
SPARQL is based on pattern matching, so path traversal is not its strong
point.
You might want to try a different language like Gremlin.
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 15.05, Mikael Pesonen
wrote:
>
> Sorry meant of course to find connections between known nodes, here x and
> y:
>
> ASK {
>
Sorry meant of course to find connections between known nodes, here x and y:
ASK {
((<>|!<>)|^(<>|!<>))*
}
On 12/02/2021 15.30, Mikael Pesonen wrote:
Hi,
is there a more efficient way to find out if two entities are
connected? This
ASK {
?s ((<>|!<>)|^(<>|!<>))* ?o
}
Hi,
is there a more efficient way to find out if two entities are connected?
This
ASK {
?s ((<>|!<>)|^(<>|!<>))* ?o
}
works for short, couple of relations long, paths but becomes too slow
quickly. Maybe something like the list:member method for RDF lists?
BR
Mikael
12 matches
Mail list logo
