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: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:12:15 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <992AF534-7A82-4539-B569-5C343EADAE80@deri.org>
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Thanks Lee, Paul! response sent!

Axel


On 2 May 2011, at 16:39, Paul Gearon wrote:

> >> 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")
> 
> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 09:12:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT