- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 05:17:43 -0700
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 04/02/2017 03:40 AM, james anderson wrote: > >> On 2017-04-02, at 12:35, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 02/04/17 10:07, james anderson wrote: >>> i note, that it purports to "records community consensus”. >> >> It also says at top "Draft Community Group Report" - it's the DRAFT text for any published version. > > that is why in my remark > > however that consensus is to be established, i dissent from the current proposal. > > it says “is to be” and “current proposal" > > best regards, from berlin, > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com Do you think that there is not even consensus on the "problematic situations"? I changed the abstract so that it does not say that there is consensus on the solution. Here is what I am seeing for the abstract. Abstract A number of issues with the SPARQL EXISTS feature have been identified. This document records community consensus within the SPARQL Maintenance (EXISTS) Community Group on problematic situations with respect to SPARQL EXISTS and contains two proposals for improvement, one that emphasizes maintaining some form of compatibility and one that emphasizes producing a simple solution that fits well into the rest of SPARQL.
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 12:18:18 UTC