- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:00:28 -0700
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
I claim that something along the lines of https://github.com/w3c/sparql-exists/wiki/Problem:-Some-uses-of-EXISTS-are-not-defined-during-evaluation is a much better vehicle for supporting discussion than individuals examples. peter On 07/13/2016 10:39 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 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 18:01:00 UTC