- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 15:01:45 -0700
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 04/02/2017 12:18 PM, james anderson wrote: > good evening; > >> On 2017-04-02, at 21:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> […] >> >> There is no reading of https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ that can result >> in anything else, even though the end result is counter-intuitive. > >> >> >> There is then the question of what should happen. However, that is a >> different question from the question of what the definition of SPARQL in >> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ says does happen. > > > as i wrote, you misconstrue. > > best regards, from berlin, > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com How do I misconstrue? Do you believe that https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ dictates a particular treatment of blank nodes in EXISTS or not? peter
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:02:19 UTC