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

Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:08:51 -0600
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, Sergio Tessaris <tessaris@inf.unibz.it>
Message-Id: <1136470132.20839.389.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 11:32 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> [...] So, here's an 
> alternative proposal. We don't get rid of them by 
> tweaking the definition: we leave the definition 
> naive, think of it as a necessary condition on 
> answer bindings, and we add a remark about answer 
> sets, that servers are not obliged to deliver 
> 'redundant' answers.

Sounds familiar. That's the "redundancy optional"
design option that I suggested back on 4 Oct.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#rdfSemantics

I'm not sure why it's more attractive to others
now than it was then, but I still like it.


> If y'all like this idea, I can do a run through 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ to 
> tweak the wordings to fit it. It should, if 
> anything, get simpler.

I'd like to see that.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 14:09:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT