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

Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:34:31 -0500
Message-Id: <b925b7798d6e4703dcf2d8311079d51f@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Sergio Tessaris <tessaris@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

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]

Thinking more about this (and discussing with Kendall), I guess we 
won't lie in the road on this. I would like to it be marked that 
nailing down what redundancy is allowed (and when) is an important 
thing to have done and a strong contraint on a future group (i.e., I 
think this is a hole in the spec, but a livable one).

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 15:34:48 GMT

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