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

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:53:36 +0100
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF88813152.29B1EB3A-ONC1257103.007C652B-C1257103.007DB651@agfa.com>

Pat Hayes wrote:
[...]
> it is broken, since it allows the bnodes in BGP to overlap with those 
> in G'. Example:
>
> G' is
>
> :a :p _:b .
> :a  :q :e .
>
> and BGP is {?x :q _:b}. With this definition, this succeeds with x 
> bound to :a, since there is a bnode variant of BGP, say {?x :q _:bb} 
> , which satisfies the conditions; but the corresponding instance of 
> BGP itself, when unioned with the scoping graph, is not entailed by 
> the scoping graph.

I take it that G is

:a :p _:bbb .
:a :q :e .

and that G' is

:a :p _:b .
:a :q :e .

and that BGP is

{?x :q _:b}

and that BGP' is

{?x :q _:bb}

and that the instance S(BPG') is

:a :q _:bb.

and anyhow find that G simply entails (G' union S(BGP')) 
i.e.

:a :p _:bbb.
:a :q :e.

simply entails

:a :p _:b.
:a :q :e.
:a :q _:bb.

no?

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 22:54:11 GMT

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