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

Re: Review: SPARQL 1.1 Federated Extensions

From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:29:17 -0300
Message-ID: <4D6D02BD.1080106@fi.upm.es>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
  On 01/03/2011 8:31, Axel Polleres wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:53, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
>
>>    On 01/03/2011 7:31, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Similar to Lee, the definition in 3.2 honestly doesn't make much sense to me.
>>> What is ep(i) ?
>> ep(is) is a function that retrieves the graph pointed by the URI i
> from where and how?
"i" should be the endpoint address, so we get access to that graph
>>> you define eval(D(G), ep(i)) as D[i]
>> what I meant is that the evaluation ep(i) returns a graph (this is what
>> I wanted to say here eval(D(G), ep(i)) = D[i]) but indeed I was mistaken.
>>> ep(i) is not defined, but I assume it shall return a graph?
>>> but then in the next definition you call
>>>
>>>    eval(D(ep(i)), P_1)
>> Then, in eval(D(ep(i)), P_1) what I mean is that I evaluate the pattern
>> P_1 in the graph returned by ep(i)
>>> either there's some overloading on the function ep() ongoing here, or I don't understand what's actually going on here. Then you write "if i in dom(ep)" where dom(ep) is not defined.
>> what I meant here is that i has to be an URI, if it is not, it should return the empty set
> I still don't get it, to be honest with you :-(
ok, if I can't explain it properly, maybe we can use the other definition.
>>> For now, I am more leaning towards dropping 3.2 and getting 3.1 straight, following the comments we gave.
>>>
>> I can try to rephrase it, and if you still do not like it I will drop it.
> I prefer whatever brings us faster to a working definition. :-)
ok, we can decide today in the call, I will drop whatever we do not like 
and I will work in the other section
> Seriously, there were problems with and comments on 3.1 as well... are these addressed already?
no, I will address them during this week, sorry for this delay.
> Thanks for your efforts, best,
> Axel
>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Carlos
>>> best,
>>> Axel
>>>
>>> On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:12, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
>>
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 14:29:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT