Re: [Fwd: Comments on SPARQL] (entailment, soundness, completeness)

On 20 Sep 2005, at 13:04, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Enrico, elsewhere in your message about "Adoption of entailment in  
> SPARQL"
> of September 19, 2005 11:55:09 PM GMT+01:00, you wrote "here we don't
> argue whether this is useful and how this is going to be used."  
> Note that I
> pretty much stopped reading at that point. I'll be more motivated  
> to study the technical
> details when I know which user requirements, use cases, and  
> applications
> a proposal is intended to address and which it's not intended to  
> address.

I thought I was clear: only in point (a) I am not arguing that. But  
point (b) and (c) are all about that. So, please go on reading.

--e.