Re: Description and thoughts behind option 6 (part 1 of 2)

On Mar 30, 2012, at 5:25 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> == Option 6
> 
> 6.A:   /, |, ! as there are in 2LC.
> 6.B:   *, +, ? are non-counting
> 6.C:   No DISTINCT
> 6.D:   No {} forms: {n}, {n,m}, {n,}, {,m}


I like this. The design looks like it strikes a nice balance. It doesn't involve supporting multiple path semantics, it provides intuitive results to the use cases in F&R, and it leaves plenty of room for expansion of property path features in extensions or future SPARQL standards. I wonder if there might be some pushback on dropping the {n,m} form, but otherwise I think this is great. I'd support this over the alternatives we've been considering.

.greg