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?

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 18:21:50 UTC

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