- From: Fred Zemke <fred.zemke@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:06:10 -0700
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44C954F2.8060903@oracle.com>
Attached is a paper I have written containing thoughts on the best way to express the formal semantics of SPARQL. In it I contrast what I call a "destructive semantics" vs. a "constructive semantics". My former attempt, posted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0170.html was a destructive semantics. After further reflection, prodded by a remark by Eric, I came up with the attached constructive semantics, which I now believe is superior. The attachment also incorporates what I take to be consensus on the semantics of OPTIONAL and that the proper scope for blank node identifiers in queries is rule [21] FilteredBasicGraphPattern, rather than just the basic graph pattern as currently in section 2.5.1 "General framework". I hope that this will be a step forward in specifying the semantics of SPARQL. Please note that I do not believe there are any "bomb-thrower" issues in this paper such as my much-criticized message on "existential vs. concrete semantics" ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0008.html ). This is just an attempt to express the consensus as best I can determine it. Fred
Attachments
- application/octetstream attachment: sparql-semantics-draft.pdf
Received on Friday, 28 July 2006 00:08:21 UTC