Re: Q: ISSUE-41 bNode semantics

On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 15:54 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 18 May 2011, at 14:20, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> > Please let me note first that my arguments are not about "what a NULL value possibly does mean among various possibilities", but they are about "what a NULL value normatively means in the SQL standard".
> RDF cannot express the complete semantics of SQL NULLs. A complete “direct mapping” is not possible without changing the semantics of RDF to closed-world and adding three-value logic to SPARQL. I believe that this WG has not been chartered to do that.

Here is the academic justification of my ⊥ in another email. Just a big
+1 from me.

> > To mimic this in RDF2RDF, my suggestion would be to translate a NULL value as a special constant from a special datatype, and then we should provide precise directives on how a query language should deal with this.
> This is not a good solution. As far as I know, no one implements anything like it, and no implementer or user is requesting it. I conclude that it is not needed and a waste of WG resources.

+1 again.


> Best,
> Richard

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 15:11:08 UTC