Re: comments on "SPARQL Query Language for RDF" (Non-respect for RDF Semantics) from Dan Connolly on 2005-09-08 (public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org from September 2005)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:08:11 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1126184891.4430.67.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 06:37 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: comments on "SPARQL Query Language for RDF" (Non-respect for RDF Semantics)
> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:26:54 -0500
[...]
> > The technical point you make is clear. If you can elaborate on what
> > makes this a show-stopper, i.e. what one would want to do with SPARQL
> > that one cannot do with the design as is, that would be even
> > more helpful.
> 
> My view is that this turns interoperating RDF implementations into
> non-interoperating implementations.  For example, an RDF implementation that
> leans (RDF Semantics, Section 0.3) any graph it stores can interoperate with
> one that doesn't, at least in my reading of the RDF Core WG documents.

I see. Thanks.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 13:10:00 UTC