- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:39:30 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>> From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> >> Date: 2 May 2011 14:57:17 GMT+01:00 >> To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org> >> Subject: draft response PFPS-1 (Fwd: Proposal for simplifying FILTER semantics) >> >> I drafted a response for >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Apr/0007.html >> at >> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:PFPS-1 >> >> please check! >> >> Axel I am happy with this, except for a few typos towards the end. It could be corrected with: "As a side remark, note that blank nodes are only disallowed syntactically, in fact the formal definitions do not restrict them, and would - as you say - make them behave harmlessly (e.g. blank nodes in DELETE would not result in any deletions). Still, as this behavior is not necessarily intuitive for all users, and based on discussions in the group on several possible alternatives, such as more complex semantics of blank nodes in DELETE clauses (e.g blank nodes being interpreted as wild cards), the group decided to syntactically restrict the use of blank nodes in DELETE clauses." (harmless -> harmlessly, alternative -> alternatives, and added the words "such as") Regards, Paul Gearon
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 15:39:58 UTC