- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:53:45 +0100
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- 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>
On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Ralph R. Swick wrote: > 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. Sure. >> I cc your coauthors so they can respond directly. > > Thanks, Bijan. You're welcome. > ... >>> "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. Well, I've posted numerous posts with examples. Perhaps we point there? I don't see any other way to present it. > 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. I don't think we're guaranteed to have such a phrasing. > 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. And "logically equivalent graphs" isn't a turn-off? (Ok, for me it's a turn on, but let's not extrapolate. Or even go there). > Regardless of how it is phrased, this issue requires substantial > context. Indeed. > I recommend an initial phrasing of the issue that relies > more on intuitionist understandings than detailed familiarity > with jargon. Well, what I like about "How should we define DISTINCT" or variants is that it does elicit intuitions. "Here's how I think we should define DISTINCT". >>> 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 :) You should win :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 14:11:43 UTC