- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 22:16:58 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2010-04-05, at 21:51, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >>> >>> I wouldn't be in favor of this proposal - I'd find it very difficult to >>> justify adding 2 forms of negation to SPARQL that seem virtually >>> indistinguishable from one another in most scenarios. >> >> We are doing that under the F2F3 resolution (the second one) regardless >> of my proposal and under the first proposal of the F2F, negation used >> the syntax "NOT EXISTS". > > I believe that most of the user world would simply accept that the words used for negation as a graph pattern and negation in a filter are different. I don't think any such easy explanation can be given when both can be used as graph pattern keywords. Indeed, SQL has the MINUS table operation, and NOT EXISTS in the WHERE/FILTER operation as well. - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 21:17:27 UTC