Re: issue formatting [Re: the suggested initial goal]

On 07/13/2016 09:07 AM, james anderson wrote:
> good evening;
> 
>> On 2016-07-13, at 18:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com
>> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> […]
>>
>> need any dataset or intended solution for discussion to proceed?  Why does it
>> even need "the pertinent query"?
>>
>> Examples can be useful to help push a discussion but a complete example is not
>> necessary for this purpose.
> 
> because i would intend to do a competent job to present the complete issue to
> someone who comes into this in two or three years time wondering what the
> issue was.
> 
> having worked with the w3c documents over the past four years wrt respect to
> rdf and sparql, it is clear that they do not accomplish that and that one
> specific reason why they fail is that they fail to put all information in one
> place in a consistent form.
> 
> i would not intend to repeat that mistake.
> 
> best regards, from berlin
> ---
> james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> | http://dydra.com


At some time it might be necessary to have a complete example.  However, to
repeat, why is this necessary to push discussion on a problem?  And if an
example is necessary at some stage, then an example that can be easily run
through a SPARQL impplementation appears to me to better than one that cannot.
 If nicely-formatted version of the example is helpful, then the ones in the
test case summary would fit the bill.

I agree that the SPARQL specification is lacking in a lot of ways, but I don't
see that it would have been any better if every discussion had to start with a
complete non-machine-interpretable example.


My point of view is that starting discussion should be easy and the
information needed should be that that is needed for the discussion, not some
rigid hard-to-generate and hard-to-read single example.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 16:16:23 UTC