W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2005

Re: worries about useMentionOp and how queries relate to rules and proofs

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:26:41 +0100
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF02AAD5D8.A56C84A7-ONC1256F9E.00650EA3-C1256F9E.00655063@agfa.com>

Pat Hayes wrote:


>>  RESOLVED: BOUND keyword and no UNSAID to address common
>>  UNSAID issues. KendallC abstaining
>>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf4.html#item04
> Sigh, I havnt been keeping up with BOUND and these discussions,
> my bad. I'll try to get up to speed soon (after MOnday: we have
> some awful deadlines looming)
>> I'm trying to figure out whether to open substantive discussion
>> of this useMentionOp issue or just say "oh... yeah, we meant to close
>> that one too, didn't we?"
> My guess is that it will be a lead balloon. After all, if you have
> some neat app in mind, to be told that you shouldn't do a simple
> thing because a logician thinks that it violates his dream of the
> way the world should be, isn't likely to resonate very strongly,
> if you take my meaning. And after all, these form-restrictions are
> perfectly meaningful: its just that they are syntactic rather than
> semantic. But why shouln't a query language allow syntactic
> constraints on answers? Even reasoning engines do things like
> that to recognize call-out cases and apply optimizations, after all.

Yes, but that is their internal kitchen and not a spec :)

Same for isBound tests; for instance I counted 16 such tests in my
running code but none in all 100's of test cases I have done so far.
I haven't seen a single motivating test case for the need of syntactic
constraint expression, only need for triple assertions, triple queries,

A long time ago you wrote

The point is that the *very same* expression can be both asserted and
queried; being an assertion or a query are not syntactic categories.

and it is working like that in my daily implementation experience;
the only difference since then is something like
"for this triple query pattern that is the triple answer pattern".
So I actually find no common ground on any need for separate AND
in query formulation (and suffer a lot with OPTIONAL..)

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 18:29:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:50 UTC