Re: updated draft

On 04/02/2017 05:31 AM, james anderson wrote:
> 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,

Somehow I was unaware that you did not agree that the examples that I put
forward are problematic.

So you do not agree, for example, that that it is problematic that according
to the SPARQL specification that the running the query

SELECT ?x WHERE {
    ?x :p :d .
    FILTER EXISTS { ?x :q :b . } }

against the graph

_:c :p :d .
:e :q :b .

produces a result set containing a query solution that maps ?x to _:c?

peter

Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 12:41:15 UTC