- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:58:00 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I see some nice work on the core terms in the spec in sections 2.2 and 2.3 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#GraphPatterns I think getting those terms and definitions established will speed things up considerably. Some reaction to $Revision: 1.39 $ of $Date: 2004/08/24 13:35:32 $ |let V be the set of variables |let B be the set of bNodes I consider bNodes to be variables, so I'd rather: let V be the set of universal variables let B be the set of existential variables since RDF mt "effectively treats all blank nodes as having the same meaning as existentially quantified variables in the RDF graph in which they occur" |let A be U union L union V union B those are traditionally called terms http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/glossary.htm#t so I'd use T there. Now we have a conflict with tradition here... |let L be the set of all literals |let T be the set of triple patterns := A x A x A Traditionally, a literal is something like P(x)... "These formulas are basically sets of clauses each of which is a disjunction of literals." -- http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ResolutionPrinciple.html Our "triple patterns" function much like literals. Hmm... I don't think I can parse the "Definition: Binding" section. I'm inclinded to break out my larch tools to review this stuff. http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/ http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFAbSyn.lsl -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 16:57:40 UTC