- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 23:07:22 +0000
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
good morning; > On 2017-04-03, at 00:29, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > […] >> >> 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. as we have for months. > I do not see any way that > https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ can be construed in this way. try a thought experiment. just for a second. > 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. imagine that the algebra were to include typing adequate to differentiate between nondistinguished variables and blank nodes. just for a second. consider the consequences. just for a second. consider whether that contradicts the recommendation text. just for a second. i suggest it does not, but i understand, you do not agree. should it, consider how the text might conceivably be modified to permit such an interpretation - as aberrant, unlikely and untenable as it may be. if such a revision were to be possible, how would it compare in complexity with the mechanisms suggested by the current “exists” draft? best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 23:08:00 UTC