W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > April 2007

Re: minor editorial comments [OK?]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:44:58 +0100
Message-ID: <461A6D8A.5030501@hp.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org



Ivan Herman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> In 12.3.1: I was wondering whether, mathematically, it is not more
> precise to say in the definition of the cardinality of mu that P(BGP) is
> a subgraph of G. P = mu(sigma) is a mapping and not a (sub)graph

yes, I agree - I've changed the text to:

"""
card[Omega](mu) = card[Omega](number of distinct RDF instance mappings, sigma, 
such that P = mu(sigma) is a pattern instance mapping and P(BGP) is a subgraph 
of G)
"""

> 
> In 12.5: Evaluation of a graph pattern:
> 	Patten -> Pattern (in the title)
> 	In the first line, shouldn't it be eval(D(D[IRI]),P)?
> 	shouldn't it be OMEGA(?var->i) instead of OMEGA(?v->i)?

Corrected.

> 
> Ivan

These changes have been made to the editors' working draft:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html v1.81

I hope this message addresses your comments to your satisfaction.  If it does, 
please let us know by replying to this message to say so. If you change the 
line to include [CLOSED] it will help the scripts used for tracking comments.

	Andy

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 16:45:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:51 GMT