- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:46:56 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 3 Feb 2010, at 15:38, Steve Harris wrote: > On 3 Feb 2010, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> I find it clearer to read and explain the EXISTS form - someone >> (Simon?) said he'd asked the same of an SQL expert and EXISTS is >> better understood by application writers than MINUS there. > > Wasn't that more to do with the syntax, than the semantics? I don't > think anyone is suggesting a different syntax (from EXISTS) for minus. I take that back, looks like maybe Eric was, unless he was just trying to make it obvious what he meant, but I'm not :) - Steve -- Steve Harris, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44 20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 15:47:26 UTC