> On 2021-02-23, at 15:10:23, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> 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 { <x> ?p+ <y> }
>
> Which is almost:
>
> ASK { <x> (!<>)+ <y> }
but for that it should yield bindings.
>
>> why was it rejected?
>
> Time mostly.
>
>> discussions appear here and elsewhere as to the wildcard predicate
>> expression and its variants.
>> why was it not permitted as a direct expression?
>
> 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 <z>+ ?y }
that is, as yielding successive bindings which correspond to the progression
through the graph.
when implemented in terms of the known approach with joins, the questions would
be if a given initial solution fixes successive joins to just that respective
predicate binding or if the successive joins are over the full matched set of
predicates and, in the first case, whether they are distinct or enumerated.
---
james anderson | ja...@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
