- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:39:29 +0100
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html has an example for issue-1 james - please pick an issue and develop an example as you see it should be. Andy On 13/07/16 17:15, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 17:40:02 UTC