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

Re: The theoreticians got rid of the OrderedMerge

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:04:30 +0100
Message-Id: <08ADB8B6-2FAD-4C89-9D26-992CC235A959@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On 26 Jan 2006, at 21:42, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> No, not "disallows".  I'm noting that the current text in the XML  
>> result set doc says that labels are scoped to the XML file.  The  
>> XML file is a standalone unit of information that can be  
>> interpreted without reference to anything else.  In particular,  
>> two XML results can't be related by blank node labels unless the  
>> application/client has some other piece of information.
>> The labels may have wider scope - they may not - it does not say  
>> (I don't read "scoped to XML doc" as "only scoped to XML doc" - an  
>> engine can just dump in global, non-IRI identifiers for blank node  
>> labels but clients can't rely on on that fact, or the stablility  
>> of them unless the service makes additional information known.
> Ah, OK, then this has been a misunderstanding for me all along. Ive  
> been assuming that bnodeIDs in an XML answer document must be  
> considered to be local to that document.
> If not, how can anyone determine what the intended scope of the IDs  
> is supposed to be? If it can be extended arbitrarily, there is no  
> general way to determine how to combine results from multiple such  
> documents. (Do we separate bnodes or not? Only an open-ended search  
> for information can tell for sure.)
> IMO it would be simpler and clearer to say that XML answer  
> documents determine the scopes of their identifiers. This would  
> seem to be in line with all other XML useage. This doesn't preclude  
> told-bnode transactions in SPARQL engines which communicate answers  
> in other ways, which I think gives Enrico his type-A window (and  
> would satisfy the UMD requests made earlier).

This makes sense to me.
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 07:04:40 UTC

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