good morning; > On 2016-06-17, at 09:52, Axel Polleres <dro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > interesting discussion... > > First, let me say that I find the claim that something is "broken" here > exaggerated.
well, while perhaps not “broken” in the sense of “inherently or evidently not functioning”, both hernández &co and patel-schneider have provided examples sufficient to support the claim that the definition constitutes a severe discontinuity. if instead of > The definition of EXISTS is broken so bad in SPARQL that it should be > replaced with a completely different mechanism. the claim had been, > The definition of EXISTS breaks with several central principles of the SPARQL > evaluation model, such as the bottom-up nature of SPARQL query evaluation and > rules for variable scope, in such basic ways and with so little motivation > and so little explanation, that it leads to non-interoperable implementations > and should be replaced. would that be acceptable? while the second is perhaps less polemic, it and its consequences are just as severe. best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | ja...@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
