W3C

– DRAFT –
SPARQL TF

22 August 2025

Attendees

Present
AndyS, gtw, lisp, olaf, pfps, TallTed, Tpt
Regrets
-
Chair
AndyS
Scribe
olaf, AndyS, Tpt

Meeting minutes

Scribe?

https://gist.github.com/hartig/3fffc7a02f3e0411158298e313b4c9c2

olaf: proposal for how to define deep injection
… ONCE means for every row
… OVERALL is inject all rows
… section 18.6.2 Evalutation Semantics
… eval(D(G), A, current solution)
… default to empty solution mapping
… for eval FILTER the current solution is set
… definition of eval BGP

<pfps> I was just trying to determine whether it is possible for a pattern to "return" a mapping that is different from an injected (single) mapping. I don't think that this is possible.

<pfps> So, could { VALUES ?X { ex:a } ... } contain a solution mapping that maps ?X to anything besides ex:a?

AndyS: VALUES is just a BIND, it should be prevented by scoping rules

<pfps> I think that James is thinking of EXISTS { BIND ?v as ?x }

gtw: also change (extend) for variable in mu-cxt

<TallTed> I *think* Olaf's typographic stuff is just HTML markup, which is allowed within a Markdown doc

close item 2

Indeed, just HTML markup ;-)

open item 4

AndyS: should we reduce the frequency to every other week?

close item

AndyS: okay, let's go to biweekly

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 244 (Thu Feb 27 01:23:09 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/present?//

Succeeded: s/define of BGP/definition of eval BGP/

Succeeded: s/variablein/variable in/

All speakers: AndyS, gtw, olaf

Active on IRC: AndyS, gtw, lisp, olaf, pfps, TallTed, Tpt