- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:30:19 -0500
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
This works for me. On 3/1/2011 4:15 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > 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 Wednesday, 2 March 2011 02:30:59 UTC