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

Re: order of FILTERs in a BGP? scope of FILTERs?

From: Fred Zemke <fred.zemke@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:44:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4511C437.50208@oracle.com>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

This is a reply to email archive message 2006JulSep/0228
I have cut extensively to get to the key paragraphs in my opinion.

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

>Section 11 is silent as to the context where FILTERs are 
>evaluated, and nowhere else in the spec makes this clear. is there a group 
>consensus that the intention is for FILTERs to be scoped to groups (curly 
This looks like the best semantics to me. 
I think that in general users will want to be able to sprinkle their FILTERs
throughout their patterns and they should not have to worry about subtle
differences depending on where they deposit a FILTER.

Lee continues much later in his message:

>I think it's clear to me that attaching the scope of a FILTER to a 
>FilteredBGP (i.e., associating the conceptual scope of a FILTER with its 
>grammatical socpe) does NOT produce results that people expect.
Based on the examples in this thread, I agree with Lee's point above.

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 22:46:52 UTC

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