- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:13:42 +0000
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
good afternoon; > On 2016-07-07, at 15:42, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 07/07/2016 06:31 AM, james anderson wrote: >> good afternoon; >> >>> On 2016-07-07, at 14:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com >>> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> […] >>> >> >> -1 >> >> what is the concrete benefit of the “add a note” approach, when not putting >> the entry in the table puts the reader in the position to need to correlate >> information at different locations in the document? >> >> best regards, from berlin, >> --- >> james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> | http://dydra.com > > The only benefit is that this is a smaller change. It does not remove > ToMultiSet from the solution modifiers part of the algebra. > > I don't think that there are any negative consequences of the removal. I > believe that moving ToMultiSet results in a better document. However, the > SPARQL document is long and complex so I'm not completely sure of the lack of > negative consequences, thus I prefer the smaller change because I see only a > tiny added benefit from making the larger change. if to add that entry to the 18.2 table column were to introduce some contradiction into the recommendation, when a literal reading of the algebra indicates that form should be a permitted argument, then there is more to be repaired in the text than a single note can rectify. if that table is taken as the basis for a literal reading, the most direct correction would be to accept the text at 17.4.1.4 as is, with the understanding the the reader will not take it to be a literal specification and change the definition for exists in 18.6 to permit a “solution modifier”. best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 14:14:27 UTC