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

Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns (rdfSemantics)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:37:32 -0600
Message-Id: <60f7b03f2a3754cbfba442bfa7999fd2@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>

On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> we ask to finalise the text of Section 2.5.
>
> Me too.
>
> [snip rebuttal of pat]
>
>> At this point it is becoming too late. We ask that either our text is 
>> used (with possible editorial changes to discuss),
>
> In fact, I though we agreed to do this. I don't know of any technincal 
> errors or issues with the proposed text,

... to wit, 
http://www.w3.org/mid/2B187D7F-B385-48E5-B312-4963896ABB30@inf.unibz.it
  January 14, 2006 9:11:08 AM CST
if I'm following correctly...

>  and many of the tweaks and variations being proposed for "clarity" 
> have fall down. Hard. There are a *lot* of complex and subtle issues. 
> We should go with what *works*.

I haven't managed to study these definitions carefully...

Are they intended to specify the same design as the LC draft, as far as 
can bee seen from tests?
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/

If there are any substantive changes, I'd like to see test case 
sketches that characterize them.

But I gather that no substantive changes are proposed in the 14 Jan 
text.

>> or that the DAWG does not conclude the work on the 31st of January 
>> and we'll have a F2F during the W3C tech plenary in France at the end 
>> of February.
>> We recall that our text provides the use of entailment, the 
>> correspondence with the subgraph matching based implementations, and 
>> uniqueness of solutions for interoperability;

That seems to confirm that this design looks the same, from the 
perspective of tests.

>>  its core definitions are stable since its appearance on the 2nd of 
>> November 2005 <http://www.inf.unibz.it/krdb/w3c/sparql/>.
> [snip]
>
> While allowing for a reasonably clean extension to more expressive 
> languages from RDF and RDFS through OWL (and others, really). In fact, 
> it would be rather simple for us to produce a submission (working 
> group?) explaining how to do this.
>
> It would be nice to settle this as it would be nice to make some 
> progress on the algebra.

"progress on the algebra"? so there's more to do to close the 
rdfSemantics issue?



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 01:37:36 GMT

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