W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > February 2017

Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:48:05 +1000
Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-Id: <E261B9E7-A670-4570-BAD0-C962340A6322@topquadrant.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Because some implementations behave differently from others.

Holger

Sent from my iPad

> On 16 Feb 2017, at 13:39, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 03:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:48 UTC