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: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:46:18 -0600
Message-Id: <p06230903bffd76f0bab5@[10.100.0.23]>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>Patrick J. Hayes wrote:
>>Reading through, some miscellaneous comments/questions/suggestions(?).
>>------
>>2.1.4
>>"Triple Patterns are grouped together with {}(braces)."
>>Possibly mention here that these groupings determine scope of bnode 
>>identifiers(?) <<Do they, in fact? That is, should we read
>>{{_:a :p :q .}
>>{_:a :r :b .}}
>>as having two bnodes in it, or one? Im presuming two, as otherwise 
>>what are the {} boundaries for? >>
>
>It's two BGPs.

So, just to check I really have got this right, in this example there 
would be two different bnodes, one in each BGP, even though those 
BGPs use the same bnodeID. Right?

...

>>Triple pattern: Why not allow bnodes in property position as well, 
>>with the same disclaimers about not matching any current RDF graph? 
>>There isn't any good semantic reason to forbid that case either. 
>>(If this would require a WG decision, forget it :-)
>
>The syntax allows it.  Defn fixed.
>
>Definition: Triple Pattern
>A triple pattern is member of the set:
>     (RDF-T union V) x (I union RDF-B union V) x (RDF-T union V)
>
>
>(Could even add literals for complete symmetry. Not done as literals 
>in the predicate would be rather confusing for no value.)

Agreed.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:46:26 GMT

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