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

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