Hi Ivan, On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Ivan Mikhailov<imikhai...@openlinksw.com> wrote: > Hello Aldo, > > I really like this idea. Say, when search for standard, first search in > more important international documents, then common national, then > specific for the specific application, then local recs. That sounds
Yeah, that's one possible use case. There is also another one, very common: Say my language preferences are English, Spanish, French, Italian, in that order. I want my user agent to know this when looking for a suitable label or text literal and fallback accordingly. >From an implementation standpoint, we can easily achieve this now craftin a SPARQL with a set of Optionals. However, this generates responses that may carry more than one alternative. While this may not be important in general, when dealing with large pieces of text ( like dbpediaProp:abstract ), this can become a considerable overhead on the network level ( not to any possible evaluation overhead ). So I was trying to use union. First alternative: English. Second: Spanish, etc etc. And then using Limit 1 so as to stop evaluation as soon as one alternative was matched. But I found no way to control order. > nice. Unfortunately, there's no appropriate SQL infrastructure, hence no > chance for quick implementation. The only extension we have for UNION is > so-called BEST EFFORT UNION that lets gather data from multiple > unreliable remote sources without halt on error if some sources are > temporarily unavailable --- the result is formed from data returned by > live instances. Nice to know this ;) > > Anyway I'll bugzilla this idea as an enhancement request to myself, to > not forget. Cool! Thanks, A > > Best Regards, > > Ivan. > > On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 16:08 -0400, Aldo Bucchi wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Is it possible to indicate an order of preference for a set of >> alternative matches ( unions )? >> We have found that explicit order is not respected when querying LOD ( >> however, it does work against Virtuoso 5 ). >> Is this a Virtuoso cluster/anytime introduced behaviour or is this how >> SPARQL is supposed to behave? >> I have been trying to find some literature on this. I am 90% sure I >> once relied on the order of the UNION patterns for something similar. >> But I might be very mistaken. >> >> Thanks, >> A > > > -- Aldo Bucchi skype:aldo.bucchi http://www.univrz.com/ http://aldobucchi.com/ PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us immediately by return e-mail.
