W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [OK?] Re: comments on "SPARQL Query Language for RDF" (Non-respect for RDF Semantics)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:00:21 +0100
Message-Id: <14fb637bbc6c6a047dc7580c5f2eba6e@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>


On Mar 3, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> The current definitions

which ones? date, uri, and section number(s), please.

>  relate SPARQL queries to RDF MT entailment.
> Does that address your issue?
>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:08:11AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 06:37 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: comments on "SPARQL Query Language for RDF" 
>>> (Non-respect for RDF Semantics)
>>> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:26:54 -0500
>> [...]
>>>> The technical point you make is clear. If you can elaborate on what
>>>> makes this a show-stopper, i.e. what one would want to do with 
>>>> SPARQL
>>>> that one cannot do with the design as is, that would be even
>>>> more helpful.
>>>
>>> My view is that this turns interoperating RDF implementations into
>>> non-interoperating implementations.  For example, an RDF 
>>> implementation that
>>> leans (RDF Semantics, Section 0.3) any graph it stores can 
>>> interoperate with
>>> one that doesn't, at least in my reading of the RDF Core WG 
>>> documents.
>>
>> I see. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 13:00:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT