- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:39:09 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
That's an improvement, but I don't see how inconsistency creeps into this part of the picture. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 02/15/2017 03:39 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > The WG has decided to add a paragraph explaining that EXISTS should currently > be used with care, see > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/c769634adc7de782209ed3da7e464a6be48b9932 > > > Holger > > > On 8/02/2017 7:33, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> What is the behaviour of SPARQL-based constraint components that use EXISTS? >> >> Is it the broken definition of EXISTS from the SPARQL document? Is it some >> particular fixed version of EXISTS? Is it undefined? Or is EXISTS not to be >> used in SPARQL-based constraint components? >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> Nuance Communications >> > >
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 03:39:45 UTC