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@[]>
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(?).
>>"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.)



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 UTC

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