Re: Jorge Perez' informal comments

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