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

Sure - the document is supposed to record the issues and the outcomes, 
not intermediates.

It does in the case of issue-1 (which is different in nature from the 
others) have an example.

     Andy

On 13/07/16 19:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 19:13:38 UTC