Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns

On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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.
[snip]

It's not more attractive to me, FWIW.

I.e., my opinion remains the same as before.

Cheers,
Bijan.