W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: BIND Issue

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:15:01 +0100
Cc: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <60BD2974-E340-422F-84DB-5DA3C7A706DF@garlik.com>
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
On 2012-08-21, at 13:06, Polleres, Axel wrote:

> (Still trying to get my head around this...)
> I am in principle in favor of Andy's proposal - sounds like more intuitive than at BGP only
> Level - if I understand it correctly that the proposal is to extend the scope of BIND
> to the group it is part of from only the BGP.
>> But the 1LC and 2LC BIND definition had some other
>> undesirable side effect, that was less of a corner case,
>> IIRC. Didn't we change it because of a comment?
> Unfortunately, I can't really remember the details of this change from the top of my head,
> but isn't one problem rather that at the moment we haven't defined what
> "the preceding group up to that point" means, i.e. we have to end the group
> graph pattern there, right? Would this cause potential intereference with
> FILTERs appearing in the same group?

I have a feeling that the problem with LC1&2 defn was related to FILTERS, but I can't remember.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 12:15:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:07 UTC