- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:36:08 +0000
- To: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
- Message-ID: <010201555db7b581-42ee28b8-3a12-421d-a779-1c8262be62e2-000000@eu-west-1.amazonse>
good morning; > On 2016-06-17, at 09:52, Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > interesting discussion... > > First, let me say that I find the claim that something is "broken" here exaggerated. well, while perhaps not “broken” in the sense of “inherently or evidently not functioning”, both hernández &co and patel-schneider have provided examples sufficient to support the claim that the definition constitutes a severe discontinuity. if instead of > The definition of EXISTS is broken so bad in SPARQL that it should be replaced with a completely different mechanism. the claim had been, > The definition of EXISTS breaks with several central principles of the SPARQL evaluation model, such as the bottom-up nature of SPARQL query evaluation and rules for variable scope, in such basic ways and with so little motivation and so little explanation, that it leads to non-interoperable implementations and should be replaced. would that be acceptable? while the second is perhaps less polemic, it and its consequences are just as severe. best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Friday, 17 June 2016 09:36:38 UTC