Re: The Problem of Correlation and Substitution in SPARQL

Yes, I confused the two reports.


The problems with SPARQL EXISTS have not been fixed.  They should be because
every SPARQL implementation I know of diverges significantly from the standard
and, more important, SPARQL implementations differ from each other.


However, I do not know what can be done to move the effort to fix SPARQL
EXISTS forward.  Most vendors of SPARQL implementations do not appear to be
interested at all.


peter



On 01/19/2018 06:43 AM, Daniel Hernandez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe Peter did not notice that this is not the report we
> submitted in 2016, but a new one (they have a similar name).
> In 2016, Peter read our first paper and then claimed for
> attention in the mailing list of SPARQL. Andy Seaborne
> proposed the creation of at this community work. There were
> several proposals, e.g., by Peter and David Martin in an ISWC
> poster, and by Andy Seaborne in this mailing list. Also,
> implementations are implicitly proposals.
>
> The primary approach used by the W3C Community Group
> to clarify these proposals was presenting example queries.
> A general criterion is needed to choose one of them, not only
> the first that fix all the reported issues. Our last report
> addresses this goal by providing a logical foundation for
> substitution. We extend known translations from SPARQL
> to Datalog to support the EXISTS clause. In our opinion, this
> setting sheds light on the fundamental issues going at the
> problems of substitution in SPARQL.
>
> We still think that this issue deserves attention. It is moribund
> but not dead ;-) Would be great if the discussion in the WG
> retakes this problem. We would be delighted to contribute to
> addressing it.
>
> Daniel
>
>  ---- On jue, 18 ene 2018 11:52:26 -0300 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote ---- 
>  > Indeed.  That paper was part of the impetus to get this effort started. 
>  >  
>  >  
>  > peter 
>  >  
>  >  
>  > PS:  Unfortunately, the effort is currently moribund. 
>  >  
>  >  
>  > On 01/18/2018 04:38 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: 
>  > > Hi, 
>  > > 
>  > > not sure if this article has been discussed or taken into account, but it 
>  > > seems relevant: 
>  > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.04387.pdf 
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > Martynas 
>  > > atomgraph.com <http://atomgraph.com> 
>  >  
>  >  
>  > 
>
>

Received on Friday, 19 January 2018 15:02:51 UTC