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: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:05:49 -0600
Message-Id: <p06230909c005709e82d4@[]>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@gmail.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>On 31 Jan 2006, at 18:31, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>Let me compare 3 different semantic definitions of e-matching. The first
>>>is "Pat's" definition
>>For the record, this is the definition that we all agreed on 
>>informally after extended email discussions,
>For the record:
>No. We agreed on the orderedmerge version (I remember a looong phone 
>call with you when you agreed on our Nov. 2 document), and you 
>volunteered to propose a text. The text that came in at the end was 
>your union text, over which we never agreed.

Ah, I had understood that we did reach an (admittedly informal) 
agreement on that. But never mind, let us move on.

Do you understand the point about bnodes vs. bnode identifiers in 
documents? And do you see how this makes it unnecessary to introduce 
BGP', since the simpler definition is already fully general? And do 
you see that allowing BGP (not BGP') and G' to share bnodes can 
introduce unintended scope errors when one tries to form a CONSTRUCT 
graph by applying the answer binding (introducing bnodes from G') to 
copies of BGP?


>Attachment converted: betelguese2:smime 19.p7s (    /    ) (00230BBE)

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 Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:06:01 UTC

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