Re: fixing errors in SPARQL

> On Jan 14, 2023, at 7:25 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> How far can the RDF-star working group go in addressing errors in SPARQL?  Several errors have been identified.  See, for example, https://www.w3.org/2013/sparql-errata.  I am particularly interested in the errors related to EXISTS, such as the ones described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html

Just my opinion, and WG chairs will need to define a policy:

The group should certainly address open Errata [1] [2]. I know the SPARQL Dev CG has a number of other issues queued, which may come into scope after the in-scope work is complete. There are also some issues of canonicalization that the RDF Dataset Canonicalization group needs resolved, mostly in N-Quads.

The group hasn’t made a statement, and there is the potential to get bogged down with a long list of pent-up demands, but adding issues to the relevant repositories can at least allow them to be triaged. Note, however, that with 20+ repositories, this presents a massive workload to just track them. Maybe we can figure out how to use GitHub projects to automatically put them in a single view.

For features worked on by the SPARQL Dev CG, probably best to allow that group to decide how to manage moving open issues over.

Gregg

[1] https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF1.1_Errata
[2] https://www.w3.org/2013/sparql-errata

> peter
> 
> 
>