- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:15:01 +0100
- To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Cc: "andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2012-08-21, at 13:06, Polleres, Axel wrote: > (Still trying to get my head around this...) > > I am in principle in favor of Andy's proposal - sounds like more intuitive than at BGP only > Level - if I understand it correctly that the proposal is to extend the scope of BIND > to the group it is part of from only the BGP. > >> But the 1LC and 2LC BIND definition had some other >> undesirable side effect, that was less of a corner case, >> IIRC. Didn't we change it because of a comment? > > Unfortunately, I can't really remember the details of this change from the top of my head, > but isn't one problem rather that at the moment we haven't defined what > "the preceding group up to that point" means, i.e. we have to end the group > graph pattern there, right? Would this cause potential intereference with > FILTERs appearing in the same group? I have a feeling that the problem with LC1&2 defn was related to FILTERS, but I can't remember. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 12:15:38 UTC