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

Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:09:15 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <4e3915bd-43ae-5ce0-e418-b991416c36dc@gmail.com>
So then that is "different from others".

However, the big problem is that no SPARQL implementation that I know of
implements EXISTS as defined in the spec, and not just in obscure corner cases.

peter


On 02/15/2017 07:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 04:09:51 UTC

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