Re: Jorge Perez' informal comments

On 4/3/2012 7:31 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I agree with this; it seems the most sensible to me.

Lee

>
>> 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 12:08:23 UTC