You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The expected results does not seem to make sense. Yet they are correct, and we can reproduce them with Jena.
What is confusing is that it feels like bindings are made up.
The one we obtain do make sense. :a is linked to his inbox, his label and :b.
but then there is :c that, while being linked to her inbox and label as well, should not foaf:knows :b.
Please note that there is no inference at play here.
Moreover, if we have those :c related bindings appear, why don't we have other :b related ones in the same fashion?
Like so:
A hypothesis would be that the VALUES declaration assigns the :b to ?o2 if there is no validfoaf:knows statement for ?o1 to be the object of.
It would behave accordingly:
*. :a gets included: there is an explicit :a foaf:knows :b, so it would match
*. :b gets rejected: there is an explicit :b foaf:knows :c, so :bis the subject of a foaf:knows statement. Therefore, it cannot match :b foaf:knows [:b]
*. :c gets included, as it is the subject of no foaf:knows statement, it gets handed the :b value.
The more I think about it the less it makes sense. Why on earth would that be standard behavior?
attached is the Query, Results, and Expected files. QRE.zip
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When running the query
bindings/values07
from the w3c SPARQL 1.1 compliance benchmark
which has this exact form:
we get incomplete results:
these are sound, but we expect two additionnal bindings:
The query executes over this dataset:
The expected results does not seem to make sense. Yet they are correct, and we can reproduce them with Jena.
What is confusing is that it feels like bindings are made up.
The one we obtain do make sense.
:a
is linked to hisinbox
, hislabel
and:b
.but then there is
:c
that, while being linked to herinbox
andlabel
as well, should notfoaf:knows :b
.Please note that there is no inference at play here.
Moreover, if we have those
:c
related bindings appear, why don't we have other:b
related ones in the same fashion?Like so:
A hypothesis would be that the
VALUES
declaration assigns the:b
to?o2
if there is no validfoaf:knows
statement for?o1
to be the object of.It would behave accordingly:
*.
:a
gets included: there is an explicit:a foaf:knows :b
, so it would match*.
:b
gets rejected: there is an explicit:b foaf:knows :c
, so:b
is the subject of afoaf:knows
statement. Therefore, it cannot match:b foaf:knows [:b]
*.
:c
gets included, as it is the subject of nofoaf:knows
statement, it gets handed the:b
value.The more I think about it the less it makes sense. Why on earth would that be standard behavior?
attached is the Query, Results, and Expected files.
QRE.zip
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: