- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:32:07 -0400
- To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mar 26, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Polleres, Axel wrote: >> If it turns out that >> basically everybody wants the DISTINCT semantics by default, >> and the counting semantics are rarely used, based on our >> current decision we *can't* come back later in another WG and >> decide to change the default semantics to align with what >> people want. > > Whereas Jeen's comment, as well as JP-4 prefer non-counting as > Default, we had a strawpoll on this earlier where the vote > was in the direction of sticking with the counting > semantics as default: > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-02-07#line0111 > > As your opinion seems to have changed in the meantime, does > this apply to anyone else in the group? (it would be important to know this > before answering to Jeen's and Jorge's comments, since my planend argument > was that the majority of the group was backing the counting semantics as > default) Sorry for the confusion. My recollection is that at the time of that straw poll, it wasn't clear yet if we were going to move ahead with two different path semantics. I had expressed preference for only supporting one. Now that it's clear we'll be moving forward with two, I have reservations about some of the specifics in how we're going about it. thanks, .greg
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 02:32:39 UTC