- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 12:31:40 +0000
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
good afternoon; > On 2017-04-02, at 14:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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”? correct. i have maintained, from the start, that some of the purported issues follow from a misconception and are not entailed by the recommendation. > 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. that restatement better articulates an incremental process. it does not change the view that some of the recorded issues are chimeric. i continue to maintain, the only true issue is #1. best regards, from berlin,
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 12:32:15 UTC