W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > August 2012

Re: BIND semantics (2)

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:53:14 +0200
Message-Id: <02648AFB-5BEF-4B75-8AD9-C202EEA0B12C@dydra.com>
To: SPARQL Comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
good evening,

On 2012-08-14, at 11:33 , Polleres, Axel wrote:

> Hi james,
>
> [...]
>
> Could you please clarify, or, in case you don't expect a formal  
> group response on your mail yourself,
> please indicate this by replying to the list again, that your mail  
> was not understood as a formal comment?

yes, my message was not intended as a formal comment, but rather a  
request to the original author to elaborate on and clarify their  
comment. as such, i expect no formal group response. the response  
from the author has been to the point.

>
> For general discussions about SPARQL 1.1, please rather use this list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-dev/
>
> Another question: Since you seem to implement SPARQL1.1, would you  
> be interested to submit
> an implementation report to support our spec? Whioch parts of the  
> spec are you currently implementing?
>
> Thanks,
> Axel
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: james anderson [mailto:james@dydra.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2012 9:07 AM
>> To: Jeremy Carroll
>> Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org; Holger Knublauch
>> Subject: Re: BIND semantics (2)
>>
>> good morning, mr carroll;
>>
>> would it be possible for you to add to your note an example
>> dataset and the results you have obtained - or would expect
>> to obtain, for the respective queries.  mr knublauch's
>> original comment expressed a concern which can be understood
>> to have already been addressed by the current specified
>> semantics. examples would help to clarify the concern.
>>
>> to wit, if you look at
>> http://dydra.com/jhacker/example-graph/ you will find our
>> interpretation of the specification. you will find there,
>> copies of the queries from your message, edited to correct
>> the projection syntax. all queries return the same binding for ?y.
>>
>> best regards, from berlin,
>>
>> On 2012-08-14, at 07:24 , Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> This is a formal last call comment on
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-query-20120724/
>>> following on from my colleague's comment
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/
>>> 2012Aug/0014.html
>>>
>>> Do the following sections of the specification contradict
>> each other?
>>>
>>> A) http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-query-20120724/
>>> #selectExpressions
>>> "The rules of assignment in SELECT expression are the same as for
>>> assignment in BIND."
>>>
>>> B) http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-query-20120724/
>>> #sparqlTranslateBindAssignments
>>>
>>> C) http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-query-20120724/
>>> #sparqlSelectExpressions
>>>
>>> [Aside: the text in (A) articulates my understanding of the
>> outcome of
>>> the Santa Clara face 2 face, where this topic was discussed]
>>>
>>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> ---
>> james anderson | james@datagraph.org | james@dydra.com |
>> http:// dydra.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

---
james anderson | james@datagraph.org | james@dydra.com | http:// 
dydra.com
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:51:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:51:22 GMT