W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

[wbs] response to 'How should SPARQL 1.1 resolve ISSUE-29, the handling of negation?'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of ogbujic@ccf.org <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 13:40:02 +0000
To: ogbujic@ccf.org,public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-6f5ca59c1593ca1c594ef5bb074dc022@cgi.w3.org>

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'How should
SPARQL 1.1 resolve ISSUE-29, the handling of negation?' (SPARQL Working
Group) for Cleveland Clinic by Chimezie Ogbuji.



---------------------------------
Which resolution to ISSUE-29 does your organization prefer?
----
LeeF's mailing list message of 2010-Apr-19 summarizes the most recent
state of discussion of the options for resolving ISSUE-29. Full statement
of question. This survey includes most of the options outlined in LeeF's
mail of 2010-Apr-06.





 * ( ) Include MINUS and NOT EXISTS as graph pattern operators. Also
include NOT EXISTS and EXISTS as FILTERs.

 * ( ) Include MINUS as a graph pattern operat. Also include NOT EXISTS
and 
EXISTS as FILTERs.
 * ( ) Include MINUS graph pattern operator only.

 * (x) Include NOT EXISTS graph pattern operator only. Also include NOT
EXISTS and EXISTS as FILTERs.


 * ( ) Include a NOT EXISTS graph pattern operator only. Define it only
for the cases that have the same results for both approaches. Explicitly
note that implementers may choose which style to implement for the
divergent cases.

Rationale: 
This is more in line with a stable model (answer set) semantics for RDF


These answers were last modified on 17 May 2010 at 13:36:28 U.T.C.
by Chimezie Ogbuji

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/Negation/ until 2010-05-17.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 13:40:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT