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

Re: status of comment "Paradoxical SPARQL query" [was: A question]

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:19:10 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCD67C54A.34EBD5C8-ON85257202.006F82D7-85257202.006F9E2B@us.ibm.com>
> On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 14:21 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> > In trying to figure out issues with the algebra, I ended up looking 
at:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006May/ 
> > 0009.html
> > 
> > and wondering if the group thinks it dealt with this point.
> 
> I don't think so. I thought perhaps this got lost in the transition
> from me to Kendall, but Kendall ack'd it 7Jun...
> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jun/0012

I also agree this hasn't been dealt with, but I think the tentative 
solution to the scope-of-FILTERs problem might resolve it satisfactorily. 
(If FILTERs are scoped to the smallest enclosing group, then both of those 
FILTERs are always true in that query (regardless of dataset) and there's 
no paradox whatsoever. Right?)

Lee

> 
> There's a sketch of a test case in there. EricP, I'd appreciate it
> if you'd flesh it out a bit and check it in.
> 
> >  If so, 
> > could I get a pointer to the resolution?
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 20:19:34 GMT

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