- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:15:56 +0000
- To: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Good for me, draft response changed accordingly. If no more suggestions, I will send the response by tomorrow evening or so. (Will be traveling then for a week, so regrets for next week.) Axel On 1 Mar 2011, at 20:57, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 01/03/11 10:49, Axel Polleres wrote: > > draft answer is here: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:KK-7 > > It starts: > > """ > reuse of bnodes across multiple BGPs in a query may lead to unintuitive > results: > """ > but Kjetil isn't suggesting it's the same bNode - only that the same > label can be reused (to mean a different bnode). > > Maybe the response could just say that, on balance, the unique label per > query is felt by the WG to be the clearer approach. > > To mutate and add to Lee's words: > > """ > There is a balance to be struck between potential confusion due to > reusing labels to identify different things and the convenience in > composition of queries. > > On balance, the WG believe that the approach of SPARQL 1.0, which avoids > the confusion possibilities, is the better choice. > """ > > Andy > > > > > > please let me know if that works for you. > > > > Axel > > > > On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > > >> On 2/28/2011 8:54 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > >>> > >>> On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:46, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > >>> > >>>> My personal feeling is that it would be _very_ confusing to allow the > >>>> same bnode label in two BGPs but have it refer to distinct blank nodes. > >>>> You'd have a situation where sometimes (within the same BGP) two > >>>> mentions of _:a would be the same and other times (in two BGPs, perhaps > >>>> separated by BIND or something like that) they wouldn't. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know if anyone feels otherwise. If there appears to be > >>>> silence / consensus, then I will draft a response to Kjetil. > >>> > >>> That was my feeling as well, I just thought that this motivation was probably discussed in DAWG1 already s.t. > >>> we can refer to it in the answer. > >> > >> I don't remember specifically discussing the option of allowing the same > >> label in 2 BGPs but having it refer to different blank nodes. > >> > >> Lee > >> > >>> > >>> Axel > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Lee > >>>> > >>>> On 2/28/2011 8:15 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> in order to answer comment KK-7 > >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jan/0009.html > >>>>> > >>>>> I am pretty sure that this has been discussed in depth and there is some DAWG1-discussion > >>>>> about this issue somewhere back in the archives... If anybody from our DAWG1 members > >>>>> feels like pointing me to it, I'd be grateful! > >>>>> > >>>>> Axel > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 21:16:31 UTC