Re: another problem with proposal B

On 03/13/2017 03:38 PM, james anderson wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-03-09, at 10:07, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com> wrote: [in response to my objection to proposal b, based on its limitations,]
>>
>> james,
>> […]
>>
>> May be the wording of the proposal isn't clear but I reject the premise that if there is a single issue that the whole proposal must be rejected.
> 
> 
> my concern is, from what i can gather from the ongoing correspondence, these proposals appear to be rooted in a misconception as to how to address these issues, which misconception leads them to attempt to address at a representational level issues which must be addressed at a semantic level, with the representation left to the implementation.
> 
> i have lost track of the documentation for the proposals.
> the location which i thought would be “definitive”, that is the github document (https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html) does not read as if there are proposals “a” and “b”, so there must be some other proposal document.
> where is it to be found?
> 
> best regards, from berlin,

The document at https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html
contains Proposal B, at least as of 25 March 2017.  Proposal A was written up
and published at ISWC last year.  The papers from that conference do not
appear to be available on the web so I have attached a copy.

As to where these proposals should be put, I have no problem with putting them
both at https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html but I was
unaware that this document had any official status.  I certainly don't think
that there is any consensus reflected there related to EXISTS except in the
issues section.

peter