- From: Bob MacGregor <bob.macgregor@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:43:14 -0700
- To: "Francis McCabe" <frankmccabe@mac.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2007 20:26:57 UTC
Hi Francis, I agree with your objection to the "flat model for variable quantification". In fact, the semantics we use is not flat. In our query language if a variable appears in two disjuncts, but not "outside" of them, it is considered to be two different variables, independently quantified. If you flatten, you get a semantics that most users would find non-intuitive. We consider much of NaF semantics to be a property of individual operators, rather than of the language itself (or the model). Thus, for example, if a user wants to use UNSAID, she can, and which uses negation as failure, and if she wants to use NOT (classical negation) she can use that. We don't happen to support two different OPTIONAL operators, but we could if there were a need for that. I'm not objecting to open world semantics per se; there are (a minority of) cases when its useful. I'm objecting to the absence of closed world semantics. Cheers, Bob
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2007 20:26:57 UTC