- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:58:41 +0200
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 20 Sep 2005, at 15:31, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> On Sep 20, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: >> [snip] >> >>> Enrico, elsewhere in your message about "Adoption of entailment >>> in SPARQL" >>> of September 19, 2005 11:55:09 PM GMT+01:00, you wrote "here we >>> don't >>> argue whether this is useful and how this is going to be used." >>> Note that I >>> pretty much stopped reading at that point. >>> >> I think you were mislead by Enrico's words there. There are plenty >> of places in that note that he appeals to existing, documented >> SPARQL use cases to motivate his technical points, e.g., >> """ON REDUNDANCY OF TOLD BNODES IN ANSWERS >> [issue <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#rdfSemantics>] >> """ >> Should queries of non-lean and lean graphs that entail each other >> give the same answers? >> """ >> The answer to this question should be *yes*. See use case 1, >> "Publishing on the Web", in >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/ >> 0430>). >> This is also relevant, as noted by PFPS, to enable interoperability >> between different interoperating implementations of RDF.""" >> > > The quoted email has two use cases - the same query is used on the > same data in two separate situations. The desired results are then > different. > > I can't tell if the proposed formulation reflects this or not - at > the moment, I don't see any place where this is acknowledged. > Could someone kindly point such a place out to me, please? My original long email <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0450> is exactly about giving a uniform and elegant semantics that encompasses *both* use cases. --e.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 13:59:06 UTC