Re: Improving EXISTS

Hi all,

I will join.

I have seen several emails discussing the issue of substitution of exists in
the W3C mailing list, but we have not had time to process all inputs to give
a reasonable answer. Actually, we are working in a second version of our
previous technical report, where we formalized the alternatives to the 
exists
clause given for popular open source implementations. Also, we will submit
several examples in how these engines matches the proposed formalizations.
We expect to publish our second version of the report at the end of this 
week,
to open this work as soon as possible.

Best regards,
Daniel

El 30/06/16 a las 07:40, Andy Seaborne escribió:
> There are bugs in the SPARQL specification with regards to EXISTS. The 
> RDF Data Shapes working group uses EXISTS, and other related 
> mechanisms, in SHACL [1].
>
> W3C process for corrections is recognized generally to be inflexible. It
> is normally to wait for the next WG to run and end which is a multiyear
> cycle - that does not fit with the RDF Data Shapes WG timescale.
>
> Community Groups can publish reports. These are not W3C standards. They
> do provide a way to record consensus or enumerate alternatives. This 
> could be used to supplement the SPARQL errata process [2].
>
> A suggestion is to use the W3C Community Group mechanism to describe a 
> solution to this specific area in a timely manner. The CG would 
> document a solution and create tests to pass over to the "RDF Tests" 
> CG [3].  If there is no single consensus on one solution within the 
> SPARQL community, including implementers and users, we can at least 
> document a small set of approaches and note the approaches taken by 
> implementations.
>
> Thoughts and comments?
>
> Please indicate if you would join such an effort.
>
>     Andy
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/sparql-errata
> [3] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-tests/
>
>

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2016 19:40:05 UTC