- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:07:07 -0500
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: <snip/> > Again, fair enough, but we're roughly treating all the features as > equivalently substantive in terms of how much it will take to get them > specified, and I don't believe that's really true (nor does anyone > else, I should think). Also, negation just strikes me as something we > *have* to fix or we'll be embarrassed. +1 This was the very first question I answered about how to use SPARQL, and it has persisted as the most common question I see. Also, having a syntactic construct for negation makes it easier for optimizers to identify a subtraction operation, instead of the more general (and slightly slower) filtered join. (Not that it eliminates the role of an optimizer here, but it's still a win) Regards, Paul Gearon
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 16:07:44 UTC