- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:21:42 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 24 Jan 2006, at 17:40, Pat Hayes wrote: > > Enrico, I think we are much more in agreement than you fear. I also > wish to have the general definitions be stated normatively (as they > currently are) and to resolve the outstanding semantics issues. And > I think this is what will be done. So let us try to have a truce > and work to a commonly desired end. Yep. To this end I have sent a specific wording proposal that uses (G' union S(BGP')), by requiring that BGP' is graph equivalent to BGP (it is a local condition) and that G' and BGP' do not contain common bnode names. > Forgive me for presuming to read your thoughts; but thinking about > some of our debates, I have the impression that you may be working > under the assumption that anything written into definitions is > normative, but text is only informative. I am not so naïve :-) > The operational effect of such language in a spec is that > implementors of, say, a SPARQL-like OWL-DL data query language (who > cannot, of course, say that they conform to SPARQL itself, under > any reading of the spec) are obliged to satisfy the general > definitions if they want to be able to describe their system as a > conforming SPARQL extension, or as in conformance with the SPARQL > specification documents. Ok, so we agree... What do you think of our proposal that simplifies the current text by having the union instead of the ordered merge? cheers --e.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 18:21:50 UTC