- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:42:50 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
At 08:35 AM 9/19/2006 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote: >On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > >>After going through the wordings with Ivan, Ralph, DanC and Sandro, >>we came up with some new wording that are hopefully precise without >>requiring too much context. The objective in having that conversation was to suggest a phrasing of each of the issue titles to be less obscure to people who have not been following the DAWG mailing list. The more readers we can get to follow an issue down two or steps steps in the path before eye-glazing sets in, the more feedback we can hope to elicit. >I cc your coauthors so they can respond directly. Thanks, Bijan. ... >>"Should the keyword DISTINCT recognize logically equivilant graphs?" > >All the forms of distinct, except term-distinct, "recognize" (give >the same answers to up to isomorphism) logically equivalent graphs. ... >So I think it's imprecise and actutally requires far more context >than the simple "What is the definition" variants. But "what is the definition?" is too large a question to ask IMHO. It is something of an art to find a phrasing that draws people in and, before they realize it, they've read enough of the discussion to know whether or not they are likely to have an answer once they read more. The original phrasing "Should DISTINCT be based on lean graphs?" did not do that in our opinion either, with reliance on the precise terminology "lean graphs" being the specific turn-off. Regardless of how it is phrased, this issue requires substantial context. I recommend an initial phrasing of the issue that relies more on intuitionist understandings than detailed familiarity with jargon. >>Many of these issues revolve around, "Should SPARQL be sensitive to >>only the graph structure (per the 1st last call semantics) or the >>semantics of RDF graphs as well." The working group could use guidance >>from the community on this point. > >See above. Kill the parens, and I would prefer "graph structure" be >replaced with the more transparent "syntax". (I think I suggested exactly that phrasing at one point during the conversation :)
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 13:43:21 UTC