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

Re: Review of "rq24" reorg. of SPARQL Query Language for RDF (part 1)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:26:30 +0100
Message-Id: <09197F53-9738-4EC5-9DF1-29B7E9FDD45E@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com

On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> + 2.7 Blank Nodes in Query Results. With talk about the scoping  
>> set and
>> co-occurrences of blank nodes, this section does not belong in  
>> Section 2
>> of the larger document. A stripped down section might be appropriate,
>> but I think it would be better off in Section 10, Query Result Forms.
> Good idea : added a @@ for this pass.

I agree that it should be moved, but it would be a good idea to have  
something on this in section 5. In particular, it would be good to  
have an example of how varying the scoping set might affect answers.  
(I'll happily supply text there.)

Looking at section 5.2, I remember that I literally didn't see:
	""These definitions allow for future extensions to SPARQL. This  
document defines SPARQL for simple entailment and the scoping set B  
is the set of all RDF terms in G'."""

Can we have this as a called out definition? After all, how we fix  
the entailment regime and scoping set is how we *define* the  
semantics of the language (pace the fixes to come).

I would suggest the same for D-Entailment. These might be definitions  
of the term "SPARQL Query under blah blah entailment" and the like.

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 10:26:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:51 UTC