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: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:32:37 +0100
Message-Id: <17DA2396-9517-4FA9-B74A-88574882A766@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 30 Jan 2006, at 19:01, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Enrico Franconi wrote:
>
>> Why do we still have a long definition of Scoping Set, while we   
>> probably just want to say that it is an arbitrary subset of the  
>> RDF  Terms (as we say after: "A scoping set B is some set of RDF  
>> terms.")?
>> Maybe you have an argument for it.
>
> I am waiting for agreement within the WG in nearby areas.  The  
> stress on all IRIs and all literals and some blank nodes was  
> suggested at one time and is left for now.

I'm waiting for Pat's OK, then.

>> "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."
>> ==>
>> "A scoping set B is some set of RDF terms. The scoping set  
>> restricts  the values of variable assignments in a solution. The  
>> scoping set may be characterised differently by different  
>> entailment regimes."
>
> Not done.  This is the text that Pat proposed and you agreed with.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0311

Yes, but the proposed change is definitely much more understandable,  
I believe.
I'm waiting for Pat's OK, then.

>> """
>> Definition: Basic Graph Pattern E-matching
>> Let E-entails be an E-entailment regime,
>> BGP a basic graph pattern,
>> G an RDF graph,
>> G' a scoping graph for G,
>> B a scoping set, and
>> S a pattern solution.
>> BGP E-matches G with pattern solution S with respect to a scoping   
>> graph G' and scoping set B,
>> if there is a basic graph pattern BGP' that is graph equivalent to  
>> BGP,
>> such that:
>> 1/ G' and BGP' do not share any blank node labels,
>> 2/ (G' union S(BGP')) is a well-formed graph for the E-entailment,
>> 3/ G E-entails (G' union S(BGP')),
>> 4/ The range of S is equal to B.
>> """
>
> Awaiting consensus.

I'm waiting for Pat's OK, then.

> What would help me is one sentence that captures the role of BGP' in
> the same way as we have text for the scoping graph and scoping set.

After the definition of Basic Graph Pattern E-matching:
"The introduction of the basic graph pattern BGP' in the above  
definition makes the query independent of the chosen blank node names  
in it."

>> "These definitions allow for future extensions to SPARQL. This   
>> document defines SPARQL for simple entailment.
>> The scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in G'."
>> ==>
>> "These definitions allow for future extensions to SPARQL. This   
>> document defines SPARQL for simple entailment, with the further   
>> restriction that the scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in  
>> G'."
>
> Not done.  I think stressing the scoping set restriction is helpful  
> and inline with the earlier remarks that different entailment  
> regimes restrict B is their own way.

Got it, but still I find the sentence not very contextualised. So  
what about:
"The scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in G'."
==>
"In the case of simple entailment as defined in this document, the  
scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in G'."

cheers
--e.

Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 18:32:46 GMT

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