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

RE: pls consider comments on disjunction

From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:25:59 -0500
Message-Id: <D24D16A6707B0A4B9EF084299CE99B3912CB4761@mcl-its-exs02.mail.saic.com>
To: 'Dave Beckett ' <Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Cc: ''RDF Data Access Working Group ' ' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Personick, Michael R." <MICHAEL.R.PERSONICK@saic.com>

Dave,

Please see Mike Personick's elaboration on our experience with the lack
of OR in RDF query.  The thread between Andy and Bob appears to highlight
that we do not have UNION in the sense that people are expecting it to
behave.  I think that Mike's response is typical of why this is a problem.

Thanks,

-bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Beckett
To: Thompson, Bryan B.
Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group '
Sent: 3/24/2005 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: pls consider comments on disjunction

On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 14:12 -0500, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> I am in favor of re-opening this issue.  I think that Bob has made
> several very good points and there is pretty consistent input from
> the comments list that we need to respect traditional semantics for
> core operators (AND, OR, NOT).
> 
> >From our own experience using SPARQL prototypes, we spend a lot of
> time re-writing queries that require disjunction using an combination
> of AND and NOT.

Can you please say why you want to do with re-opening this issue - what
points does Bob raise that make you want to change the current state, as
I am not clear.  It's currently a closed issue - in the sparql query
language as UNION,  over my objection - I wanted it out.

Dave
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:26:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:22 GMT