- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:07:44 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
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