- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:36 -0700
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 07/05/2016 02:38 PM, Gregory Williams wrote: > >> On Jul 5, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: [...] >> >> 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'm fine with that. I wonder whether the CG can produce interim versions of a report. >> 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. That's an interesting issue. I don't know if there is indeed general agreement between implementations for the majority of the problematic cases of EXISTS. There is certainly one place where there is known disagreement. There might be others. Getting implementors in the CG and having them willing to quickly run test cases would be very useful. Getting agreement on the desired meaning of EXISTS, and having that match current implementations, is indeed my hope here. I think that a nearly necessary precursor to this is getting agreement on what the current specification says, as I don't think that the CG can just replace some reasonable part of the current specification just because implementations don't do that. > thanks, > .greg peter
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 21:56:06 UTC