- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:19:31 -0600
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>, andy.seaborne@hp.com, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 10:09 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:02:13AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > How about adding... > > > > "The dataset gives the exact graph against which the query is > > evaluated (no further inference is used to determine the > > input graph)." > > Better: "The dataset gives the precise graph against which the query > is to be evaluated: inference must not be used to determine or modify > the input graph." That's a misuse of "must not", IMO. We don't write "the sum of 2 and 2 must be 4"; we just write "the sum of 2 and 2 is 4". Also, graphs aren't mutable. Please let's stick to "is not". cf must is for agents http://www.w3.org/2001/01/mp23 <- http://esw.w3.org/topic/RfcKeywords > > The SPARQL QL spec is already explict enough, to me, but Kendall > > if you can think of a way to make it more explicit, very well, > > but keep in mind that the QL is sorta orthogonal to inference. > > Uh, yes, I know that it's "sorta orthogonal"; or, well, I think that > it is orthogonal. > > My point about the Sparql spec is that it doesn't help a person who > wants to figure out why all of her tests are failing because her > triple store defaultedly does RDFS inference (say) on all graphs. In > fact, if there's nothing in the test suite about this issue, and a > person goes and looks at the Sparql spec, the language about > orthogonality of inference and query misleads *further*. > > So, I'm not suggesting any changes in this regard to the Sparql spec > itself. Then we're agreed. Very well. > Hope that's clearer. > > Kendall -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 15:19:17 UTC