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

[EDITORIAL] Preface of rq24

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:26:17 +0100
Message-Id: <B0979225-F4F2-4650-9B44-3803F1193C5B@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


I would prefer that:
	Should DISTINCT be based on lean graphs?
Be phrased as
	What is the definition of DISTINCT?

	Should SPARQL care about graphs that are inconsistent by D-entailment?

	What are the answers of a query of a D-inconsistent graph?

	Should isLiteral observe D-entailment? Should it validate lexical  
I thought we settled that isLiteral applies only to literals (not  
data values). Forgive me if I perpetuated a confusion there. The  
issue in question is whether operators should apply to arbitrary data  
values, or to ones with literal form only.

Finally, I would prefer a different phrasing for:
	"""Many of these issues reduce to "Is SPARQL a graph query language  
or a higher level query language?" """"

Or rather, dropping it altogether. Both "graph query language" and  
"higher level query language" are imprecise and non standard, so I  
think are more confusing than helpful. If I were to rephrase it, I  
might say:
	"Many of these issues revolve around, "Should SPARQL be sensitive to  
the syntax or the semantics of RDF graphs, and how."

But without specifying which issues do so and how, I think it's more  
confusing than helpful.

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:27:21 UTC

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