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 00:58:22 +0100
Message-Id: <16695D71-8D5D-43E4-8AED-9785F72923DC@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On 27 Jan 2006, at 22:47, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> option b)
>> """
>> Two basic graph patterns are graph-equivalent if they are the same  
>> up to bnode renaming.
>> """
> I suggest we use the informal version, but include a link to the  
> normative formal version already published. Its a good idea  
> generally to link to other specs rather than repeat content:
> Two basic graph patterns are <ahref="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC- 
> rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-graph-equality> graph-equivalent</a>  
> if they are the same up to bnode renaming.

I agree about choosing (b), but please note that the old definition  
does *not* work for BGPs because there are variables as well to map;  
so we can't refer to it directly (unless you say explicitly that it  
is the same by considering variables as well).

>> 2) Definition of scoping set does not emphasise the simple fact  
>> that in general it is an arbitrary subset of the RDF terms. So I  
>> propose:
>> """
>> A Scoping Set B is an arbitrary subset of the RDF terms.
>> """
> But this could be understood as saying that B is required to be  
> arbitrary, i.e. cannot be further restricted by other specs, which  
> would be very misleading. How about being even more explicit:
> '''''
> A scoping set B is some set of RDF terms. This is an arbitrary  
> parameter in this definition. The contents of B should be  
> restricted to correspond appropriately to different entailment  
> regimes.
> '''''

OK for me.

>> 3) Typo in the definition of scoping graphs (s/The/A/).
>> """
>> The Scoping Graph G' for RDF graph G, is an RDF Graph that is  
>> graph-equivalent to G
>> """
>> -->
>> """
>> A Scoping Graph G' for RDF graph G, is an RDF Graph that is graph- 
>> equivalent to G.
> Actually that was not a typo. I prefer the definite article, to  
> emphasize that we are talking about a single scoping graph for all  
> answers.

I now see this, but apparently was confusing to external readers. Can  
you find a better rephrasing?

> I know I lost the vote, but since we are now tinkering with this  
> yet again, let me explain why having this clause in the definition  
> is a mistake.

Look, I am happy that you tell us your doubts. It is not matter of  
voting, but to find the best technical solution. The more brains are  
united the better it is.

> During the telecon, I thought it was just a gratuitous complication  
> that didn't change the effect of the definition - which would  
> itself have been sufficient reason to reject it - but in fact it is  
> broken, since it allows the bnodes in BGP to overlap with those in G'.

Jos made your example explicit, and he showed that it works :-)

Probably you misread the definition: we say
G simply entails (G' union S(***BGP'***))
i.e., there is BGP' inside, not BGP.

Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 23:58:38 UTC

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