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

Re: Agenda request: characterize the diffs between subgraph-matching and E-entailment

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:06:24 +0100
Message-Id: <687F38A9-13B0-4096-85AB-8293A084DB96@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
> . . .
>> I believe not if the bug is repaired a la Enrico's post.
> Which post are you referring to?  The last one in the archive from  
> Enrico is August 11.

Er...I don't know if there's a specific fix post. I just meant that  
there was a bug in that the two semantics didn't align, but that's a  
repairable thing, IIRC. It doesn't have anything directly to do with

> . . .
>> *Evidently* we need to refresh people's understanding of the  
>> panoply of issues, and, frankly, the best way is to start good  
>> email threads.
> We do have test cases that have been around for a while.  We could  
> start by email about those.

Sounds good. But could we deal first with some of these algebra  
issues? I say this because I only have so much energy and attention  
at the moment (aside from being overwhelmed with stuff, I'm having  
ongoing, we believe arthritis med related, complications which are  
draining). I'm a bit surprised to see how many actions I took on last  

Claudio and Jorge's papers and posts are publically available, so I'm  
totally not the gatekeeper.

Unless there is some reason to believe that the semantics of BGP and  
the algebra are tangled up more than we might have different inputs  
to the algebra...there's no need to couple or order them in any  
specific way, yes?

Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 18:06:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:52 UTC