- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 05:40:41 -0700
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
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