- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:29:29 -0700
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 04/02/2017 03:26 PM, james anderson wrote: > good morning; > >> On 2017-04-03, at 00:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 04/02/2017 12:18 PM, james anderson wrote: >>> good evening; >>> >>>> On 2017-04-02, at 21:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> […] >>>> >>>> There is no reading of https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ that can result >>>> in anything else, even though the end result is counter-intuitive. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is then the question of what should happen. However, that is a >>>> different question from the question of what the definition of SPARQL in >>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ says does happen. >>> >>> >>> as i wrote, you misconstrue. >>> >>> best regards, from berlin, >>> --- >>> james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com >> >> How do I misconstrue? Do you believe that >> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ dictates a particular treatment of blank >> nodes in EXISTS or not? > > the text of the recommendation does not require that the operations necessary to implement exists be performed in the lexical domain and, were it to have, in a manner which conflates blank nodes and nondistinguished variables. > > best regards, from berlin, > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com Ok, so there we differ. I do not see any way that https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ can be construed in this way. There is nothing in the document at all to support any reading other than the one where substitution works on expressions in the SPARQL algebra, replacing pieces of this algebra by other pieces of this algebra, and the result of substitution is to be treated just like every other construct in the SPARQL algebra. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:30:05 UTC