Re: Signalling entailment in queries

On 7/20/2010 9:16 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> I can completely sympathize with this concern and think Souri as well as
> others echo this concern as well.  Hopefully, I think we are better informed
> about why this is important than we were when we chose not to support the
> ability for the user to specify the entailment regime in the query and if we
> are willing to revisit the conversation about LET after deciding it was out
> of scope (for instance), then we should consider the same with this issue if
> there is critical mass.

I may weigh in on the rest of this discussion at some other point, but I 
don't really think the comparison with LET is particularly salient. For 
one thing, LET was one of the top 1 or 2 considered features that missed 
the cut, while parametrized inference was not; but that aside, LET has 
several implementations, including new implementations since the WG 
defined the original scope of our work. It also benefits from 
potentially having semantics that are already defined within the query 
language document. As far as I can tell, none of this is true for 
parametrized inference. As a WG Chair, I have been hesitant to expand 
our scope at all with LET, which is one reason I've let it drag on for 
so long; similarly, I'm extremely wary of taking on a new task such as 
signalling entailment, particularly given that this thread has 
illuminated many wide-open design decisions that would seem to need to 
be made without the ability to lean on existing implementations.

Lee

Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 02:54:40 UTC