- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 22:26:01 +0000
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
good morning; > On 2017-04-03, at 00:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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? the text of the recommendation does not require that the operations necessary to implement exists be performed in the lexical domain and, were it to have, in a manner which conflates blank nodes and nondistinguished variables. best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2017 22:26:37 UTC