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

Re: ISSUE-29: MINUS / NOT EXISTS

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:46:56 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B7A88AAB-200E-4A70-B42F-C3E9FE75BAB6@garlik.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
On 3 Feb 2010, at 15:38, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2010, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>> I find it clearer to read and explain the EXISTS form - someone  
>> (Simon?) said he'd asked the same of an SQL expert and EXISTS is  
>> better understood by application writers than MINUS there.
>
> Wasn't that more to do with the syntax, than the semantics? I don't  
> think anyone is suggesting a different syntax (from EXISTS) for minus.

I take that back, looks like maybe Eric was, unless he was just trying  
to make it obvious what he meant, but I'm not :)

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44 20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 15:47:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT