- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 18:47:24 +0000
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
good evening;
> On 2017-04-02, at 20:28, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> […]
>
> How can this be read other than
>
> substitute(BGP(?x :q :b),{(x,_:c)} = BGP(_:c :q :b)
yes the recommendation definitions are not specific as to whether this happens in the lexical domain or in a model domain.
one is free to pick.
you - and so far as i recall, the authors of the paper(s) which led to this “issue”, chose the lexical domain.
that leads, as is to be expected, to problems.
in which case, at least one reader of those papers wondered, why this avenue was necessarily selected, when - as is the case with other aspects of sparql interpretation, one is permitted to, and is better off to perform such operations in a model value domain and, in addition, not necessarily statically.
you do not believe this.
that is ok.
i maintain a sparql processor which does, which i understand to conform to the recommendation, but which does not exhibit the problems which you insist must apply.
that leads me to believe, the deficiency is in the “lexical” interpretation, not in the recommendation.
best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 18:48:01 UTC