Re: Review: SPARQL 1.1 Federated Extensions

On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:53, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:

>   On 01/03/2011 7:31, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > Similar to Lee, the definition in 3.2 honestly doesn't make much sense to me.
> > What is ep(i) ?
> ep(is) is a function that retrieves the graph pointed by the URI i

from where and how?

> > you define eval(D(G), ep(i)) as D[i]
> what I meant is that the evaluation ep(i) returns a graph (this is what
> I wanted to say here eval(D(G), ep(i)) = D[i]) but indeed I was mistaken.
> > ep(i) is not defined, but I assume it shall return a graph?
> > but then in the next definition you call
> >
> >   eval(D(ep(i)), P_1)
> Then, in eval(D(ep(i)), P_1) what I mean is that I evaluate the pattern
> P_1 in the graph returned by ep(i)
> > either there's some overloading on the function ep() ongoing here, or I don't understand what's actually going on here. Then you write "if i in dom(ep)" where dom(ep) is not defined.

> what I meant here is that i has to be an URI, if it is not, it should return the empty set

I still don't get it, to be honest with you :-(

> > For now, I am more leaning towards dropping 3.2 and getting 3.1 straight, following the comments we gave.
> >
> I can try to rephrase it, and if you still do not like it I will drop it.

I prefer whatever brings us faster to a working definition. :-)
Seriously, there were problems with and comments on 3.1 as well... are these addressed already?

Thanks for your efforts, best,

> cheers,
> Carlos
> > best,
> > Axel
> >
> > On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:12, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 11:32:53 UTC