- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:26:54 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Thanks for the careful review... we have something of a back-log of comments, so it may be some weeks before we can respond to all of your points in substance. Meanwhile, I'd like to know more about one of your points... On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 21:26 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > > ISSUE 1 (show-stopper): Non-respect for RDF Semantics [...] > For example, querying > > G1 ex:a ex:b ex:c . > _:a ex:b ex:c . > > with the triple pattern > > ?x ex:b ex:c . > > will result in two matches, one for ex:a and one for _:a. > Querying > > G2 ex:a ex:b ex:c . > > with the same triple pattern will result in only one match, for ex:a. However, > G1 and G2 are equivalent with respect to simple interpretations (and thus also > for RDF interpretations, RDFS interpretations, and OWL interpretations). The technical point you make is clear. If you can elaborate on what makes this a show-stopper, i.e. what one would want to do with SPARQL that one cannot do with the design as is, that would be even more helpful. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 03:27:00 UTC