- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:11:37 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Sorry, I misread what Jorge wrote. bound does change results, etc. He was just saying that if, to eliminate NAF, you want to get rid of ! bound or OPTIONAL, he much prefers optional. I don't think Axel was suggesting at all that we get ride of the NAF in SPARQL, just that we make it clear and easily accessible via a better syntactic construct. I personally am open to removing it, but believe that if we include it, then there's no point in not making it nicely accessible, and, indeed, some points against not doing so. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 13:11:42 UTC