- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 19:11:56 -0700
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 10/28/2016 03:24 AM, james anderson wrote: > >> On 2016-10-28, at 12:08, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org >> <mailto:andy@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> Peter, all, >> > > -1, in general. > any proposal which stipulates how to implement dynamic bindings in terms of > any specific mechanism will be an unnecessary burden on implementations, to > ensure that they produce the same side.effects and the specified incidentals. > it would be better to define the semantics for dynamic bindings in general and > then leave the implementation mechanism to the implementation. > > best regards, from berlin, I don't understand this complaint at all, unless it is a general complaint against how SPARQL is specified. There is no chance that this group will change the basics of how SPARQL is specified so all proposals to fix EXISTS have to fit within the framework of 1/ translate SPARQL syntax to the algebra 2/ evaluate algebra expressions Both proposals do this by modifying minor portions of the translation or evaluation, in ways that are not alien to the current SPARQL specification mechanisms. peter
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2016 02:12:32 UTC