The current definitions relate SPARQL queries to RDF MT entailment. Does that address your issue? On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:08:11AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > 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. > > -- -eric office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University, 5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520 JAPAN +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA cell: +81.90.6533.3882 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution.Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 12:37:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:23 UTC