- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:38:32 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 07/04/2016 07:48 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> I'd like to propose we use the email list for decisions usually with "call for >> consensus". For certain things like publishing a CG Note or a specific >> version of the test suite we might want a vote - the Apache process for a vote >> is "majority and at least 3 +1" - to have a decision URL for the record. Sounds good to me. > > Are we going to start out with some meta-discussions? I was wondering whether > there should be one note or several. My opinion would be that a single note to cover the exists issues and proposed fix would be appropriate. > I was also wondering whether it would > be better to start by just agreeing on where there are problems,without > providing any solutions or to also have proposed solutions along with > perceived problems. I think your previous emails do a good job of covering places where there are obvious problems and for which there's agreement, and several other cases where there might not be total agreement, but the fact that there's disagreement is just as problematic for implementors and interoperability. I believe there's probably general agreement on what the intuitive results should be in many uses of EXISTS. I suspect (and would love to see/gather implementation reports to confirm or refute) that there is probably a lot of overlap in what implementations are already doing when it comes to EXISTS queries. And I believe the goal here should be to find agreement on the desired semantics informed by existing implementation behavior, and to produce a better definition of EXISTS to match the desired semantics. thanks, .greg
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 21:38:59 UTC