- From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:25:59 -0500
- To: 'Dave Beckett ' <Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: ''RDF Data Access Working Group ' ' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Personick, Michael R." <MICHAEL.R.PERSONICK@saic.com>
Dave, Please see Mike Personick's elaboration on our experience with the lack of OR in RDF query. The thread between Andy and Bob appears to highlight that we do not have UNION in the sense that people are expecting it to behave. I think that Mike's response is typical of why this is a problem. Thanks, -bryan -----Original Message----- From: Dave Beckett To: Thompson, Bryan B. Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group ' Sent: 3/24/2005 3:17 PM Subject: RE: pls consider comments on disjunction On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 14:12 -0500, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote: > Dan, > > I am in favor of re-opening this issue. I think that Bob has made > several very good points and there is pretty consistent input from > the comments list that we need to respect traditional semantics for > core operators (AND, OR, NOT). > > >From our own experience using SPARQL prototypes, we spend a lot of > time re-writing queries that require disjunction using an combination > of AND and NOT. Can you please say why you want to do with re-opening this issue - what points does Bob raise that make you want to change the current state, as I am not clear. It's currently a closed issue - in the sparql query language as UNION, over my objection - I wanted it out. Dave
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:26:19 UTC