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

Re: Draft answer KK-7

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:30:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4D6DABBB.9020503@thefigtrees.net>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
This works for me.

On 3/1/2011 4:15 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Good for me, draft response changed accordingly.
>
> If no more suggestions, I will send the response by tomorrow evening or so.
> (Will be traveling then for a week, so regrets for next week.)
>
> Axel
>
> On 1 Mar 2011, at 20:57, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 01/03/11 10:49, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> draft answer is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:KK-7
>>
>> It starts:
>>
>> """
>> reuse of bnodes across multiple BGPs in a query may lead to unintuitive
>> results:
>> """
>> but Kjetil isn't suggesting it's the same bNode - only that the same
>> label can be reused (to mean a different bnode).
>>
>> Maybe the response could just say that, on balance, the unique label per
>> query is felt by the WG to be the clearer approach.
>>
>> To mutate and add to Lee's words:
>>
>> """
>> There is a balance to be struck between potential confusion due to
>> reusing labels to identify different things and the convenience in
>> composition of queries.
>>
>> On balance, the WG believe that the approach of SPARQL 1.0, which avoids
>> the confusion possibilities, is the better choice.
>> """
>>
>>          Andy
>>
>>
>>>
>>> please let me know if that works for you.
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>> On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/28/2011 8:54 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:46, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My personal feeling is that it would be _very_ confusing to allow the
>>>>>> same bnode label in two BGPs but have it refer to distinct blank nodes.
>>>>>> You'd have a situation where sometimes (within the same BGP) two
>>>>>> mentions of _:a would be the same and other times (in two BGPs, perhaps
>>>>>> separated by BIND or something like that)  they wouldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone feels otherwise. If there appears to be
>>>>>> silence / consensus, then I will draft a response to Kjetil.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my feeling as well, I just thought that this motivation was probably discussed in DAWG1 already s.t.
>>>>> we can refer to it in the answer.
>>>>
>>>> I don't remember specifically discussing the option of allowing the same
>>>> label in 2 BGPs but having it refer to different blank nodes.
>>>>
>>>> Lee
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Axel
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/2011 8:15 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in order to answer comment KK-7
>>>>>>>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jan/0009.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am pretty sure that this has been discussed in depth and there is some DAWG1-discussion
>>>>>>> about this issue somewhere back in the archives... If anybody from our DAWG1 members
>>>>>>> feels like pointing me to it, I'd be grateful!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Axel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 02:30:59 GMT

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