- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:02:20 -0500 (EST)
- To: eric@w3.org
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
I believe that the current design admits modes in which my concern is correctly handled. I would prefer a design that required what I view as the correct behaviour, but I will not object to the current design. For the record, the issue shows up when querying an RDF store that has been given ex:a ex:p ex:c . ex:a ex:p _:c . The behaviour of SPARQL depends on the behaviour of the RDF store. The RDF store might end up leaning its input, and thus only store ex:a ex:p ex:c . or it might maintain the input "as is". My view is that both stores are "correct", and that querying should not be able to distinguish between the two behaviours. However, the SPARQL basic query ex:a ex:p ?c . would (most likely) have one match in the leaning case, but two matches in the non-leaning case. (This also depends on just how the scoping graph is determined.) Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research From: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> Subject: [OK?] Re: comments on "SPARQL Query Language for RDF" (Non-respect for RDF Semantics) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:37:51 -0500 > 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
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 13:02:30 UTC