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

Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns (rdfSemantics)

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:57:19 +0100
Message-Id: <25FB1FC9-C861-4049-80D4-28B701567B39@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On 17 Jan 2006, at 02:37, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>  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.

Yes.

>> 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?

I want to be sure that the way the text is formulated currently is  
consistent with the new proposed "semantics-based" text.

cheers
--e.
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 08:28:03 GMT

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