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

Re: [EDITORIAL] Preface of rq24

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:27:55 +0200
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20060919102755.GF15839@w3.org>

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 08:35:31AM +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> 
> >After going through the wordings with Ivan, Ralph, DanC and Sandro,
> >we came up with some new wording that are hopefully precise without
> >requiring too much context.
> 
> I cc your coauthors so they can respond directly.
> 
> >On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 06:53:05PM -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html
> >>>
> >>>I would prefer that:
> >>>	Should DISTINCT be based on lean graphs?
> >>>Be phrased as
> >>>	What is the definition of DISTINCT?
> >>
> >>I agree with this suggestion to the editors.
> >
> >"Should the keyword DISTINCT recognize logically equivilant graphs?"
> 
> All the forms of distinct, except term-distinct, "recognize" (give  
> the same answers to up to isomorphism) logically equivalent graphs.  
> Now, it is true that I underemphasized term-distinctness (though I  
> believe Andy's post mentioned it), but the choice isn't between term- 
> distinct and (some other form), but between term-distinct, and source- 
> lean distinct, and answer-lean distinct.
> 
> So I think it's imprecise and actutally requires far more context  
> than the simple "What is the definition" variants.
> 
> >>>	Should SPARQL care about graphs that are inconsistent by D-
> >>>entailment?
> >>>
> >>>as:
> >>>	What are the answers of a query of a D-inconsistent graph?
> >>
> >>And with this one too.
> >
> >We preferred Kendall's wording
> >"What are the answers to a contradictory KB?"
> 
> Yes that's fine.
> 
> >though I am not sure the world will comprehend the interaction between
> >entailment and contradictory KBs...
> 
> They don't need to.
> 
> >>>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?" """"
> >>
> >>I *really* dislike this current phrasing; it's far too tendentious to
> >>be useful. What is a "higher level query language" anyway?
> >>
> >>>But without specifying which issues do so and how, I think it's
> >>>more confusing than helpful.
> >>
> >>Agreed.
> >
> >We put a lot of thought into this one and arrived at
> >[[
> >Many of these issues revolve around, "Should SPARQL be sensitive to
> >only the graph structure (per the 1st last call semantics)
> 
> I object to the parenthetical. For example, DISTINCT is independent   
> to a large degree to the underlying BGP semantics. Furthermore,  
> DISTINCT was *unspecified*, that is, it didn't have a settled  
> semantics in the 1st last call.
> 
> So, I'm not sure that "many" of these issues revolve around that.
> 
> I would raise it as a distinct issue thought. But it's not like  
> settling "Query RDF syntax or semantics" will *settle* everything. It  
> will be suggestive and directive, of course.
> 
> [snip]
> >Given this, I removed this issue as well, yielding
> >[[
> >Pending issues:
> >
> >    * Should SELECTed variables be separated by commas?
> >
> >    * Should the keyword DISTINCT recognize logically equivilant
> >      graphs?
> 
> As above, I object.
> 
> >    * Should SPARQL care about graphs that are inconsistent by
> >      D-entailment?
> 
> "Care about?" Obviously, on any approach, it "*cares*" about them.  
> How about:
> 	What are the answers of a query against an inconsistent KB?
> 
> (A la Kendall?)

Note: I forgot to transplant this one from the meeting:
"What should SPARQL return if a graph is inconsistent by virtue of use
of the above datatypes?"

> >    * Should blank nodes be treated differently than variables in the
> >      query pattern?
> >
> >Many of these issues revolve around, "Should SPARQL be sensitive to
> >only the graph structure (per the 1st last call semantics) or the
> >semantics of RDF graphs as well." The working group could use guidance
> >from the community on this point.
> 
> See above. Kill the parens, and I would prefer "graph structure" be  
> replaced with the more transparent "syntax".
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

-- 
-eric

home-office: +1.617.395.1213 (usually 900-2300 CET)
	    +33.1.45.35.62.14
cell:       +33.6.73.84.87.26

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 10:26:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:27 GMT