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

Re: [EDITORIAL] Preface of rq24

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:53:45 +0100
Message-Id: <6CCA80DF-08BE-427E-BA06-6AE172B101FA@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>

On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Ralph R. Swick wrote:

> At 08:35 AM 9/19/2006 +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.
> The objective in having that conversation was to suggest a phrasing
> of each of the issue titles to be less obscure to people who have
> not been following the DAWG mailing list.  The more readers we
> can get to follow an issue down two or steps steps in the path
> before eye-glazing sets in, the more feedback we can hope to elicit.


>> I cc your coauthors so they can respond directly.
> Thanks, Bijan.

You're welcome.

> ...
>>> "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.
> ...
>> So I think it's imprecise and actutally requires far more context
>> than the simple "What is the definition" variants.
> But "what is the definition?" is too large a question to ask IMHO.

Well, I've posted numerous posts with examples. Perhaps we point there?

I don't see any other way to present it.

> It is something of an art to find a phrasing that draws people
> in and, before they realize it, they've read enough of the discussion
> to know whether or not they are likely to have an answer once
> they read more.

I don't think we're guaranteed to have such a phrasing.

>   The original phrasing "Should DISTINCT be
> based on lean graphs?" did not do that in our opinion either,
> with reliance on the precise terminology "lean graphs" being
> the specific turn-off.

And "logically equivalent graphs" isn't a turn-off? (Ok, for me it's  
a turn on, but let's not extrapolate. Or even go there).

> Regardless of how it is phrased, this issue requires substantial
> context.


> I recommend an initial phrasing of the issue that relies
> more on intuitionist understandings than detailed familiarity
> with jargon.

Well, what I like about "How should we define DISTINCT" or variants  
is that it does elicit intuitions. "Here's how I think we should  
define DISTINCT".

>>> 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".
> (I think I suggested exactly that phrasing at one point
> during the conversation :)

You should win :)

Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 14:11:43 UTC

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