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

Re: fed review

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:23:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4E26F2FA.4050802@thefigtrees.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 7/20/2011 11:03 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 20/07/11 15:30, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> On 7/20/2011 10:14 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>>> On 2011-07-20, at 03:57, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>>>> So, the possible solutions are:
>>>>> - For the SERVICE VAR semantics
>>>>> - add a new operation that could allow the evaluation (operation
>>>>> which wouldn't be bottom-up)
>>>>> - define its whole semantics in a new way
>>>>> - For the boundedness restriction
>>>>> - specify all cases: it may take a bit long
>>>>> - remove it? I do not think this is a good idea, how do we specify
>>>>> then that a variable is bound (which is needed for the evaluation
>>>>> semantics of SERVICE VAR)?
>>>>>
>>>>> something missing? any other option?
>>>>
>>>> As someone who was a bit uncomfortable including it in the first
>>>> place, I'll add another, dramatic option: remove SERVICE VAR from the
>>>> specification altogether.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a good, pragmatic solution, but it would require a
>>> second Last Call, no?
>>
>> Given that we haven't yet published Last Call for this document, no. :-)
>
> If it includes a grammar change, it is a change to the query doc. :-(

Good point, but I will argue vociferously that it's not something that 
should trigger a new LC for query.

Failing winning that argument, I'd "implement" this by keeping the 
grammar as is and putting a line in federated query that says "it is an 
error to follow SERVICE with a variable."

Lee

>
> Andy
>>
>> Lee
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 15:24:21 GMT

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