- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:37:32 -0600
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Jan 14, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote: > >> Hi, >> we ask to finalise the text of Section 2.5. > > Me too. > > [snip rebuttal of pat] > >> At this point it is becoming too late. We ask that either our text is >> used (with possible editorial changes to discuss), > > In fact, I though we agreed to do this. I don't know of any technincal > errors or issues with the proposed text, ... to wit, http://www.w3.org/mid/2B187D7F-B385-48E5-B312-4963896ABB30@inf.unibz.it January 14, 2006 9:11:08 AM CST if I'm following correctly... > and many of the tweaks and variations being proposed for "clarity" > have fall down. Hard. There are a *lot* of complex and subtle issues. > We should go with what *works*. I haven't managed to study these definitions carefully... Are they intended to specify the same design as the LC draft, as far as can bee seen from tests? http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/ If there are any substantive changes, I'd like to see test case sketches that characterize them. But I gather that no substantive changes are proposed in the 14 Jan text. >> or that the DAWG does not conclude the work on the 31st of January >> and we'll have a F2F during the W3C tech plenary in France at the end >> of February. >> We recall that our text provides the use of entailment, the >> correspondence with the subgraph matching based implementations, and >> uniqueness of solutions for interoperability; That seems to confirm that this design looks the same, from the perspective of tests. >> its core definitions are stable since its appearance on the 2nd of >> November 2005 <http://www.inf.unibz.it/krdb/w3c/sparql/>. > [snip] > > While allowing for a reasonably clean extension to more expressive > languages from RDF and RDFS through OWL (and others, really). In fact, > it would be rather simple for us to produce a submission (working > group?) explaining how to do this. > > It would be nice to settle this as it would be nice to make some > progress on the algebra. "progress on the algebra"? so there's more to do to close the rdfSemantics issue? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 01:37:36 UTC