W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2005

RE: Testcase comment and question

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:50:13 -0500
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014f01c53498$86410a90$6401a8c0@gsclaptop>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:02 PM
> To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org; Geoff Chappell
> Subject: Re: Testcase comment and question
> 

> Both the current editor's draft and the latest public working
> draft give this formal specification:
> 
> [[
> Definition: Optional Matching
> 
> Given graph pattern GP1, and graph pattern GP2, let GP = (GP1 union
> GP2).
> 
> The optional match of GP2 of graph G, given GP1, defines a pattern
> solution PS such that:
> 
> If GP matches G, then the solutions of GP is the patterns solutions of
> GP else the solutions are the pattern solutions of GP1 matching G.
> ]]

Thanks. I guess it wasn't fair to imply there was no definition. I do think,
though, that this one will need some tightening up. For example it seems to
imply that if _any_ solutions can be found in GP, then no solutions will be
used from GP1. And assuming that's not the case, it doesn't have much to say
about how to determine exactly which solutions of GP1 are disallowed because
they are solutions of GP (especially in the tricky cases where vars(GP) !=
vars(GP1)). 

Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 19:50:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT