W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Wording change (was : Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns)

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:57:53 +0100
Message-Id: <296BE4CA-6DA1-4946-BC33-B805743CBD86@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>


On 20 Jan 2006, at 00:31, Enrico Franconi wrote:

> On 20 Jan 2006, at 00:23, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>> My final proposal: we use our idea with orderedmerge (which has  
>> already been massaged in a nice text in <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ 
>> DataAccess/rq23>, that still contains few minor imprecisions I'll  
>> point out in another mail), and immediately after Andy will  
>> provide the explanation of it by showing how it would be  
>> equivalent to the union and a more restricted scoping graph,  
>> exactly in the way he says that it is equivalent to subgraph  
>> matching.
>
> Andy:
>
> Definition:  Scoping Graph
> Delete: ", with respect to scoping set B," and "and uses terms from  
> scoping set B".
>
> "The scoping graph uses those terms to give a graph that is  
> equivalent to the graph to be matched." ==> "The scoping graph  
> makes the graph to be matched independent on the chosen bnode names."
>
> Definition:  Basic Graph Pattern
> Add: "* For simple entailment, the scoping set B includes only the  
> RDF terms in G'"

The reason for this request is to allow for smooth extensions.
In fact, for the basic OWL-DL extension, B contains all URIs  
excluding RDF/RDFS/OWL vocabularies (i.e., no bnodes), while G'  
should still be graph-equivalent to G (and so it should have bnodes  
too).

cheers
--e.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 05:58:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT