Re: Improving EXISTS

good afternoon;

> On 2016-07-04, at 16:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 07/03/2016 04:08 PM, james anderson wrote:
>> good morning;
> [...]
>> [i reiterate, repeat, and implore] (see
>> please, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Neumann2/publication/47863714_Scalable_Join_Processing_on_Very_Large_RDF_Graphs/links/00b7d51d1687cae740000000.pdf)

> [described is a single case in which a literal interpretation of “substitute” is sufficient to produce the exemplary result.]
> 
> The definitions are here clear, unambiguous, and free of technical problems.

yet, the interpretation is not the only one which can produce that result.

there are other mechanisms (cf. the rdf-3x account, above) which yield the same result for the trivial case, but which do not depend on literal lexical substitution. 
that those alternative mechanisms also yield results in more complex cases, cases where the literal interpretation yields errors, suggests that the literal interpretation may be flawed.

best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com