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

Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:18:57 -0600
Message-Id: <p06230907c0043ff584ed@[]>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>[...large snip]
>>>>I did not misread the definition: I suggest that y'all read through
>>>>the above carefully, and think about it.
>>>We did it carefully. It is easy to see that the latest
>>>characterisation is correct, see above.
>Well, I can't really add very much here, but in the past I
>did some RDF and OWL entailment test cases and for the
>current test cases that I tested it is clearly the case that
>G simple-entails (G' union S(BGP'))

Right, no argument. My point was however that it may not entail (G' 
union S(BGP)). I wouldnt be surprised if it did this in all the test 
cases we have so far, but theres a case in my message where it 

>and can only speak from my own implementation experience
>that I really always rename the bnodes to get G' and BGP'
>so that there can never be a bnode label clash in the
>graphs and graph patterns that the reasoner is using.

I agree that in practice it is quite clear what to do. All we are 
arguing about is how to phrase the definitions so that <what to do> 
will indeed be clear and unambiguous. The intention of having all 
this priming in the definitions is to ensure that *however* you 
choose the bnodes, things will still work out correctly, so that a 
hypothetical anti-josderoo demon couldn't possibly implement it wrong 
even if they tried.


>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 22:19:36 UTC

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