Re: [all] OWL and RDF compatibility scribles

On Dec 13, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Michael Kifer wrote:
[snip]
> This is indeed a NAF and a very bad syntax at that.
> Why not use something more decent and conventional?
> Seems that the process of butchering SPARQL has already began even 
> before
> the language has been born officially.
>
> Anyway, I thought that Bijan said that SPARQL doesn't have explicit
> negation,

I never said that,s orry.

>  but if things like ! and binding tests are allowed then it
> appears that it has negation in a roundabout way.

Yep, sorry I meant to mention these.

> One more stab at it: binding tests are appropriate for programming
> languages (like Prolog), but not for a query language that is pitched 
> as a
> declarative language. My $0.02.

Comments welcome to the SPARQL list :)

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 02:47:06 UTC