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

Re: Editorial thread for BGP matching

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:02:54 +0100
Message-Id: <90A46EDB-E263-4FF9-8A5B-31E7AE99AF09@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>


On 25 Jan 2006, at 18:58, Enrico Franconi wrote:

>
>
> On 25 Jan 2006, at 18:55, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2006, at 18:41, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>> Enrico Franconi wrote:
>>>> Another proposed simplification:
>>>> Currently:
>>>> Definition:  Scoping Set
>>>> A Scoping Set B is a set of RDF terms formed by the combination of:
>>>>      * all URIs
>>>>      * blank node names
>>>> This could just be:
>>>> A Scoping Set is an arbitrary subset of the RDF terms.
>>>
>>> I thought the point was that it is always all IRIs (oops s/URI/ 
>>> IRI) and some set of blank nodes (but not all of them).  That  
>>> then ties to "The identifiers introduced by S all occur in B." in  
>>> the BGP matching defn.
>>
>> Well, yes, you are right.
>
> More precisely: in sparql we have all the B includes only the  
> bnodes in G'; then, we have to leave room for future extensions.  
> For example, for OWL data queries, B does not include any bnode;  
> and there is an understanding of RDF entailment where you may want  
> to have all bnodes in B.

OK, I have to read what I write :-)

s/all the B/that B/

--e.
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:03:40 GMT

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