RE: Options on Property paths

Just to clarify.

    + more intuitive for common reachability use cases than option 3

This applies for both options 6 + 7:
Both defaulting to distinct paths and changing the semantivs of *,+ would be (as the recent discussions seem to indicate) more intuitive for simple reachability (*,+) use cases than defaulting to counting as in curent option 3 (where I understand that the resolution was to leave *,+ as in LC). 

'/', as well as mixed use cases where '*' and '+ 'are combined with '/' are 
an orthogonal issue, IMO. I am not entirely clear about what people fine more 
intuitive on '/', opinions welcome.

Best,
Axel



 
-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres 
Siemens AG Österreich 
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies 
CT T CEE 
 
Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Williams [mailto:greg@evilfunhouse.com] 
> Sent: Montag, 02. April 2012 00:21
> To: Polleres, Axel
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Options on Property paths
> 
> On Apr 1, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> 
> > 7) Add ALL(path) only, and change default to DISTINCT(path)
> >    - Requires a new last call
> >    - May lead to formal objections within the working group?
> >    - lock-in to non-counting semantics as default
> >    + addresses commenters (for sure JP-4, who suggested 
> this, not sure about JB-10, WM-1)
> >    + more intuitive for common reachability use cases than option 3
> 
> I don't think having distinct semantics for all path 
> operators is more intuitive for things like :p/:q. I think 
> the intuitive understanding of / is the rewriting semantics 
> we've got right now. Does anybody think otherwise?
> 
> thanks,
> .greg
> 
>

Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 06:53:43 UTC