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

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:52:57 +0100
Message-Id: <309465B7-FCFB-4896-B669-1895963F2CF4@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com

I completely agree with Jos. I don't see the counter-example here.
--e.

On 27 Jan 2006, at 23:53, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:

>
> 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 23:53:05 GMT

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