- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:18:35 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> We are not talking just about SPARQL XML results format (which should
> be covered) but about how the extended matching fits into existing
> implementations and how bindings flow from one BGP matching to another
> in the same query, possibly where the BGP matching are under different
> entailment regimes. Applying to the extended matching would
> automatically include SPARQL XML results although it is good to call
> those out anyway, as the draft does (may be written by a non-SPARQL
> engine).
Thanks for pointing this out; sorry I missed it as an issue.
I'm still having trouble understanding it, though. Can you run through a
scenario where this would be a problem? What are you thinking some
implementor will do, given this spec, that we should tell them not to
do? Does it involve some OWL 2 entailment regime, or something else?
Thanks!
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 14:19:10 UTC