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

Re: Editorial thread for BGP matching

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:26:07 -0600
Message-Id: <p06230905bff6e633ab67@[]>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>Please put text changes on this thread to reduce the risk of them 
>getting lost.

If its any consolation to anyone, I'm now the one who is feeling 
overwhelmed. I have to focus on non-WG stuff for the rest of today, 
but I'll do you a version with the simplified definitions before 
Tuesday, for comparison.


PS. I agree with the separate document idea for the non-SPARQL stuff. 
We could also discuss things like told-bnodes in there as SPARQL 
variations. But then the SPARQL definitions should not even mention 
the scoping set B: all we need is the scoping graph being a bnode 
variant of G which should be standardized apart from all the BGPs and 
which defines the scope of the answer set.
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 19:26:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC