- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 01:56:36 -0500
- To: Bob MacGregor <bob.macgregor@gmail.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Jitao Yang <jitao.yang@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
On Sep 5, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Bob MacGregor wrote: > Hi Pat, > > I put together an example a year or so where I executed a SPARQL query, and got a result, and > then added a triple to the graph, and ran the same query, and one of the binding sets in the original result > was not present in the new result. That sure sounds non-monotonic to me. I guess it is in a sense, though I'd like to see the example before committing myself. My point however was directed at the assumption that implementing not-exists queries itself made the logic nonmonotonic, which is incorrect. Pat > Now it may be that the triple > store that I ran on had an incorrect implementation of SPARQL, but if so that vendor was unaware of > the fact. Are you claiming that the behavior that I saw would be an indication of an incorrectly-implemented > SPARQL on whatever RDF store I observed it? > > - Bob ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 06:57:13 UTC