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

Re: Agenda request: characterize the diffs between subgraph-matching and E-entailment

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:42:19 +0100
Message-Id: <C262A0A7-EAFF-4682-A3FD-C6DFA70FC439@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com

On Oct 10, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>> Test cases are:
>>> 1/ A deliverable we are chartered to provide
>>> 2/ A good way of making sure we are talking about the same thing.
>> Sure, but I think progress on the semantics of the algebra are  
>> achievable even without test cases, or with tests cases that might  
>> have to be updated (just as they were with distinct).
> No tests changed or were updated for DISTINCT.


I didn't say there were. If we had adopted REALLYREALLYDISTINCT, we  
*would have had* to update the test cases. Thus, with the DISTINCT,  
there were test case that *might have had* to have been updated.

I.e., the mere risk of having to change test cases shouldn't block  
progress, IMHO, or affect how we discuss things. Just as it hasn't in  
the past.

In any case, I believe that the examples of problems with the algebra  
can be stated against ground data, wherein LC1 and LC2 coincide. So,  
why should this be a blocker?

Is this meta-debate useful? How about some commentary on the problems  
with the semantics of conjunction in the algebra? After all, it's not  
like this point is *new*, and it clearly must be addressed.

Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 11:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:52 UTC