- 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
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