why did the authors exclude path variables when considering the alternatives.
this formulation appears intuitive.
ASK { <x> ?p+ <y> }
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 expression?
> On 2021-02-13, at 12:32:23, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry meant of course to find connections between known nodes, here x and
>>> y:
>>>
>>> ASK {
>>> <x> ((<>|!<>)|^(<>|!<>))* <y>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
