W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: More definition comments

From: Aditya Kalyanpur <swap_adityak@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20050405222908.85221.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

Continuing where Bijan left off, I have a comment on
the formal definition of "Optional Matching".

Here's what the specs [1] say:
"Given graph pattern GP1, and graph pattern GP2,
Opt(GP1, GP2) is the optional match of GP2 of graph G,
given GP1.

Let GP = (GP1 union GP2) then S is a solution of
Opt(GP1, GP2) if"
I'm not sure which "union" is meant here? Obviously, I
assume we don't mean the 'union' keyword used for
pattern alternatives. In any case, "union" implies
logical disjunction whereas what we need here is a
conjunction, i.e.,  we need a group pattern, so we can
rewrite GP = {GP1, GP2} 

..continuing with the defn..

"S is a solution for a match of GP on G, or else S is
a solution for GP1 and S is not a solution for GP.

S in R(Opt(GP1, GP2), G) if:
   S in R(GP, G)
  S not in R(GP,G) and S in R(GP1, G)."

I'm not sure if "S not in R(GP,G)" is required in the
second disjunct. As I understand Optional Matching, if
S is a solution to an optional match of GP2 on G given
GP1, it implies that S must match GP1 first (on G) and
then optionally match GP2 (on G), right? So in that
case, the definition should be:

S in R(Opt(GP1, GP2), G) if:
  S in R(GP1, G) 
  S in R(GP, G), where GP = {GP1, GP2}



Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 22:29:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC