- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:00:21 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On Mar 3, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > The current definitions which ones? date, uri, and section number(s), please. > 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. >> >> >> -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 13:00:31 UTC