- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:31:06 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 03/04/12 06:12, Polleres, Axel wrote: > Dear all, > > As input to the discussion, I forward in the end of this mail with > the commenter's permission the informal discussion with Jorge Perez > on JP-4 about the previous proposal involving +,*,{*},{+}. > > I think some of his points might be also relevant to Option 6: > > a) Jorge's question about the semantics of (:a | :b)* should be > answered, i.e., whether it counts the duplicates of (:a | :b) and > then discards only the duplicates generated by * or whether it just > discards all the duplicates. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0260.html still applies. And I think (hope) the part 2 message substantiates that. > b) Jorge seems to have a strong preference for the restriction to > counting/non-counting on path-level, i.e., ALL()/DISTINCT() That > would be current options 7) and 8), however, that was against the > previous options which involved {+},{*}). > > My guess is that the design of Option 6 not having {*} and {+} and > not having {n,m} might resolve the last part of jorge's response > below, since infinite paths aren't really an issue anymore with the > new semantics of +,*, right? Also, by dropping {n,m} we may resolve > Wim's (WM-1) concern. As mentioned in my previous mail, I'd > personally prefer approaching all three commenters with a digest of > options *the group can live with* above picking one only. From my > side and current knowledge, I am ok with either Option 6), 7), and > 8). > > Best, Axel
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:31:42 UTC