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

Re: olive branch (was: Re: FUB on Pat's proposal for BGP matching (please read))

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:21:42 +0100
Message-Id: <7B1A45CF-15D4-4E99-91A6-A1EC397487EC@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>


On 24 Jan 2006, at 17:40, Pat Hayes wrote:

>
> Enrico, I think we are much more in agreement than you fear. I also  
> wish to have the general definitions be stated normatively (as they  
> currently are) and to resolve the outstanding semantics issues. And  
> I think this is what will be done. So let us try to have a truce  
> and work to a commonly desired end.

Yep. To this end I have sent a specific wording proposal that uses  
(G' union S(BGP')), by requiring that BGP' is graph equivalent to BGP  
(it is a local condition) and that G' and BGP' do not contain common  
bnode names.

> Forgive me for presuming to read your thoughts; but thinking about  
> some of our debates, I have the impression that you may be working  
> under the assumption that anything written into definitions is  
> normative, but text is only informative.

I am not so na´ve :-)

> The operational effect of such language in a spec is that  
> implementors of, say, a SPARQL-like OWL-DL data query language (who  
> cannot, of course, say that they conform to SPARQL itself, under  
> any reading of the spec) are obliged to satisfy the general  
> definitions if they want to be able to describe their system as a  
> conforming SPARQL extension, or as in conformance with the SPARQL  
> specification documents.

Ok, so we agree...

What do you think of our proposal that simplifies the current text by  
having the union instead of the ordered merge?

cheers
--e.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 18:21:50 GMT

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