- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:48:05 +1000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
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