RE: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week

See the examples in:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0009


The issue about the results of FILTER functions, all algebra operators and how to pass constraints into a matching as some engines might (and do).

Just saying "results" does not work.  That only applies to what comes out in SPARQL results.  

We have three layers:

 1 - Results formats (SPARQL XML Results or RDF graphs)
 2 - Algebra and FILTER functions
 3 - BGP matching.

And also the query syntax (4).

The text only covers (1) and (4).  Change the matching and the correct behaviour at level 2 is undefined.

 Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 1 June 2009 15:19
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: Re: deciding on rdf:PlainLiteral this week
> 
> 
> > 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 14:37:22 UTC