W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: definitions for SELECT, projection, substitution [was: [Fwd:Re:...]]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:27:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4194D65F.8030701@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

I have tried to use the term "substituion" instead of set of bindings.

v1.131

	Andy

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 18:23 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
>>>(http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#MultipleMatches 1.120 )
>>
>>Text added in v1.129
> 
> 
> OK, but now there's some redundancy; the definition I gave
> for substituion is intended to replace the definitions
> of binding and set of bindings.
> 
> These define pretty much the same construct:
> 
> "A substitution S is a functional relation from variables to RDF terms.
> We write S[v] for
> the term that S pairs with the variable v."
> 
> and
> 
> "A binding is a pair which defines a mapping from a variable to an RDF
> Term. If B is such a binding, var(B) is the variable of the binding, and
> val(B) is the RDF term.
> 
> ...
> 
> A binding, B, defines a substitution subst(T, B) on triple T that
> replaces every occurrence of the variable, var(B), with the
> corresponding RDF Term, val(B)."
> 
> 
> I hope to have a suggestion about how to resolve the redundancy
> after I study the definitions for SOURCE (and perhaps optionals).
>  
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 15:27:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT