W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Subgraph results counter-example(s)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:17:03 -0400
To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040608171703.GD12984@monkeyfist.com>

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 07:45:54AM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:

> The problem is that this requirement as written introduces the notion of
> "explanation", which is actually a *very* hard problem in general, and
> is almost always more information than the user really wanted.

As I said in the telecon today, I suppose that I (eek!) introduced
this troublesome clause. I don't remember where it came from, and I
don't remember why I would have introduced it. But it is troublesome,
as you point out, and suggests something very different from (and much
harder than) what we wanted to set down as a requirement.

It'll be stricken from the next draft of UC&R.

Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 13:19:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:27 UTC