- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:34:31 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Sergio Tessaris <tessaris@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > 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. [snip] Thinking more about this (and discussing with Kendall), I guess we won't lie in the road on this. I would like to it be marked that nailing down what redundancy is allowed (and when) is an important thing to have done and a strong contraint on a future group (i.e., I think this is a hole in the spec, but a livable one). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 15:34:48 UTC