W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

Re: 404 Re: Comments on the Triple Patterns Fragments draft

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:45:36 +0200
To: public-hydra@w3.org
Message-Id: <201407311045.36814.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Wednesday 30. July 2014 17.06.17 Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>> my interpretation of "no elements == doesn't exist" seems too much of
>> a stretch.
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> I think the core problem I have with this equation is that it is more
> aligned with the Closed World Assumption than with the Open one.

Well, it depends on your interpretation: 404 always was "we can't find it 
right now", and you shouldn't interprete that to mean "we know that this 
doesn't exist". The only way you can make a similar statement is 410, which 
is "it has been here in the past, but now, it really isn't".

Me, I'm +1 on SHOULD respond 404 on empty set. Sounds useful to me.

> But on the other hand, it is my opinion that the traditional SPARQL
> philosophy ignores the open-world assumption too much indeed.
> How meaningful are COUNT and NOT in an open world?
> How meaningful is a finite resultset?
> But that's a different story altogether :-)

Hey, stop dissing SPARQL! :-) SPARQL is very conscious that aggregates and 
negation imply a closed world assumption. And that's why it didn't make it 
to SPARQL 1.0. People needed it, and implemented it, so it was an obvious 
thing to do for 1.1, still being conscious it implies closed world.


Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 08:46:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC