- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:37:14 -0600
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>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/ It must be more nuanced than this for the general case. I don't think we can stipulate that B must contain *all* IRIs, in general. For example, OWL-DL would want to restrict the IRIs allowed in answer bindings to exclude the excluded vocabulary. (?Enrico?) Also, someone might offer a specialized query service that focused on giving particular classes of answer and ignores others, for example. I think if we use B then we should just keep it as general as possible in the general case, and require future specs to specify it appropriately in each case. 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 19:37:24 UTC