- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:57:19 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 17 Jan 2006, at 02:37, Dan Connolly wrote: >> 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. Yes. >> 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? I want to be sure that the way the text is formulated currently is consistent with the new proposed "semantics-based" text. cheers --e.
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 08:28:03 UTC