- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:50:16 -0400
- To: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 7/20/10 10:53 PM, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > On 7/20/2010 9:16 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > 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. I can understand the argument around priority (there being more of a need for one feature over another), but with regards to implementations, I should point out that standards don't always follow extant implementations (and in fact they rarely do as far as I can tell). As for the ability to indicate which entailment regime to use, there is no 'semantics' necessary. The semantics of the answers you get from using various entailment regime is currently defined and they are well-identified. This is simply a matter of indicating which one you want to use in the query. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest that this ability lacks a well-defined semantics. > 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. Frankly, I don't see any 'wide-open' design decisions other than perhaps the question of granularity (i.e., can you specify an entailment regime at the level of a graph graph pattern). -- Chime =================================== P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009). Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of our services, staff and locations. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 13:05:01 UTC