Re: Q: ISSUE-41 bNode semantics

On 20 May 2011, at 14:12, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> I guess you haven't realised that doing personal attacks rather than scientific discussions doesn't lead anywhere -- or at least from my point of view.

Look, Enrico. From your communication on this list, I get the impression that you have not read RDF Semantics. That is not unusual -- many people here haven't, and to the best of my knowledge NO ONE here has read the SQL spec. That's why I asked and offered a walkthrough. You said you don't need that because you were in the SPARQL WG. That's a non sequitur. Many members of the SPARQL WG have not read it either. I did not intend this question as a personal attack, and if you took it as one then I have spoken poorly. However I explicitly question whether one can make statements about the formal correctness and completeness of RDB-to-RDF mappings without being aware of the model-theoretic semantics of RDF.

There is an allegation that your proposal is non conforming to RDF, with a specific and precise technical argument. Your proposal will not go anywhere if you do not find a way of responding to such arguments.


Received on Friday, 20 May 2011 14:53:27 UTC