W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: draft response PFPS-1 (Fwd: Proposal for simplifying FILTER semantics)

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:39:30 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimH=LrkzAbK4AyzUa6mQ6hAb6TOxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>> From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
>> Date: 2 May 2011 14:57:17 GMT+01:00
>> To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>> Subject: draft response PFPS-1 (Fwd: Proposal for simplifying FILTER semantics)
>> I drafted a response for
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Apr/0007.html
>> at
>>  http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:PFPS-1
>> please check!
>> Axel

I am happy with this, except for a few typos towards the end. It could
be corrected with:

"As a side remark, note that blank nodes are only disallowed
syntactically, in fact the formal definitions do not restrict them,
and would - as you say - make them behave harmlessly (e.g. blank nodes
in DELETE would not result in any deletions). Still, as this behavior
is not necessarily intuitive for all users, and based on discussions
in the group on several possible alternatives, such as more complex
semantics of blank nodes in DELETE clauses (e.g blank nodes being
interpreted as wild cards), the group decided to syntactically
restrict the use of blank nodes in DELETE clauses."

(harmless -> harmlessly, alternative -> alternatives, and added the
words "such as")

Paul Gearon
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 15:39:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC