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, 
  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?

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 

>> 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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC