W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009


From: Simon Schenk <sschenk@uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:50:12 +0000
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1246287012.11781.16.camel@tweety>
> (I reorganised the page end of Friday - didn't remove any text intentionally but I put the two options in separate sections.  I generally called it NOT EXISTS.)


> To make progress on this, let's take it in two steps.
> 1/ Decide on UNSAID vs Set-MINUS, that is resolve to explore one design in depth
> 2/ Then take as a sub-issue of NOT EXISTS as to have a graph operator and/or a FILTER expression.
> I propose we adopt the UNSAID/NOT EXISTS design.  The Set-MINUS seems to have no advantages because it is equivalent to an NOT EXISTS form, but requires each side to be a set, which would need to be worked through the rest of the language.

Full ack.

> On the second part, I found it to be no more work as the graph operator is the introduction of  algebra-level filter.

I also agree. The only thing I do not like about this is full SPARQL
syntax in FILTERs. It makes thinks hard to read. BUt I guess that is

Best regards

Simon Schenk | ISWeb | Uni Koblenz
Five sentences policy: http://five.sentenc.es/

Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 14:50:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:55 UTC