Hi Yury
Thank you. Using the OFFSET statement, it means I can do as following after the
result is sorted.
For example to get the third row:
LIMIT 1
OFFSET 3
Best regards
Samir
________________________________
De : Yury Katkov <katkov.ju...@gmail.com>
À : Samir Bilal <samirbil...@yahoo.fr>
Cc : "dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net"
<dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
Envoyé le : Mercredi 28 Décembre 2011 21h34
Objet : Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Get a specific row given its rank from an
ordered result in SPARQL
Hi!
If I understand correctly you need to use OFFSET statement.
-----
Yury Katkov
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Samir Bilal <samirbil...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Hi,
>Is it possible to do ranking in SPARQL, to get a row given its rank from an
>ordered result. For example for the first row we can
>use ORDER BY DESC(?property) and using the LIMIT clause as LIMIT 1. How can
>we get only the second or third row for example?
>
>
>Best regards
>Samir
>
>
>________________________________
> De : Patrick Cassidy <p...@micra.com>
>À : dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>Envoyé le : Mardi 27 Décembre 2011 1h26
>Objet : [Dbpedia-discussion] DBpedia ontology
>
>
>I have looked briefly at the DBpedia ontology and it appears
to leave a great deal to be desired in terms of what an ontology is best suited
for: to carefully and precisely define the meanings of terms so that they can
be automatically reasoned with by a computer, to accomplish useful tasks.
I will be willing to spend some time to reorganize the ontology to make it more
logically coherent, if (1) there are any others who are interested in making
the ontology more sound and (2) if there is a process by which that can be done
without a very long drawn-out debate.
>
>I think that the general notion of formalizing the content
of the WikiPedia a a great idea, but to be useful it has to be done
carefully. It is very easy, even for those with experience, to put
logically inconsistent assertions into an ontology, and even easier to put in
elements that are so underspecified that they are ambiguous to the point of
being essentially useless for automated reasoning. The OWL reasoner can
catch some things, but it is very limited, and unless a first-order reasoner is
used one needs to be exceedingly careful about how one defines the relations.
>
>I am totally new to this list, and would appreciate pointers
to previous posts discussing such issues related to the ontology. A quick
scan of recent posts did not turn up anything relevant to this matter.
>
>Perhaps those who have been particularly active in building
the ontology would be willing to discuss the matter by telephone? This
could help educate me and bring me up to date quickly on what has been done
here.
>
>Meanwhile, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah and Happy New
Year to the members of this group.
>
>Pat
>
>Patrick Cassidy
>MICRA Inc.
>cass...@micra.com
>908-561-3416
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Write once. Port to many.
>Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
>new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
>Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
>_______________________________________________
>Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
>Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Write once. Port to many.
>Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
>new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
>Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
>_______________________________________________
>Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
>Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex
infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to
virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual
desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure
costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
