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

Re: Blank node identifiers in FILTER clauses

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:30:14 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230904c0d1982dddc1@[]>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: Fred Zemke <fred.zemke@oracle.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

>>I see four possible resolutions:
>>1. (My preference) the scope of a blank node identifier is
>>an entire FilteredBasicGraphPattern, not just a basic graph
>>pattern.  To do this, we need to extend the definitions in
>>section 2.5 so that they define the solutions of a
>>FilteredBasicGraphPattern rather than just the solutions of a
>>basic graph pattern.  I can see how to do this with the
>>simple entailment mapping definition; I don't see how to do
>>this with the general E-entailment definition.
>My preference as well.
>I would remove the possibility of blank nodes (and general expressions) in the
>functions isIRI/isLiteral/isBlank, restricting them to named variables only,
>because these really work on the terms of the bindings, not the values.
>I would like to see a proposal for (1) from one or more of the original
>contributors of the current text (Enrico, Bijan, Pat).

I will try to get to this in about a week, if nobody else beats me to 
it. I havnt got time before then to focus down to the details closely 

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 Wednesday, 5 July 2006 16:30:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:51 UTC