W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2005

BP input to DAWG/SPARQL (esp SOURCE, UNSAID) still wanted

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:42:38 -0600
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1107207758.24721.61.camel@localhost>

I asked, via Ralph, for input from the Best Practices/Deployment
WG on some DAWG/SPARQL issues. Though we haven't closed the loop,
I would still like to.

I just read that you have formally disposed of these actions...

[[
Action review:
==============

ACTION: Guus to contact someone regarding "source response" issue

Dropped, weak belief that DAWG have now resolved this issue.

ACTION: Ralph to report back to dawg that we can't figure out what the
"unsaid" problem is precisely
DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2005Jan/0034.html
]]
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jan/0150.html

Let me ask that you take them (or something like them) up again.

Yes, we resolved the SOURCE issue, but we did so without the
benefit of input from the BPD WG. Any such input is still in
order; it may well provide sufficient new information to reopen
the issue.

I wonder if the unsaid issue is still insufficiently clear..
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#unsaid
if so, it suggests our usecases/requirements docs isn't clear,
since the issue pretty much comes from the objective...

  It must be possible to query for the non-existence of one or more
  triples or triple patterns in the queried graph. 

  objective 4.3 Non-existent Triples accepted 2004-07-15
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20041012/#d4.3


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 31 January 2005 21:42:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:47 GMT