Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns

On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 11:32 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> [...] So, here's an 
> alternative proposal. We don't get rid of them by 
> tweaking the definition: we leave the definition 
> naive, think of it as a necessary condition on 
> answer bindings, and we add a remark about answer 
> sets, that servers are not obliged to deliver 
> 'redundant' answers.

Sounds familiar. That's the "redundancy optional"
design option that I suggested back on 4 Oct.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#rdfSemantics

I'm not sure why it's more attractive to others
now than it was then, but I still like it.


> If y'all like this idea, I can do a run through 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ to 
> tweak the wordings to fit it. It should, if 
> anything, get simpler.

I'd like to see that.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 14:09:01 UTC