- From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:53:02 -0300
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 01/03/2011 7:31, Axel Polleres wrote: > Similar to Lee, the definition in 3.2 honestly doesn't make much sense to me. > What is ep(i) ? ep(is) is a function that retrieves the graph pointed by the URI i > you define eval(D(G), ep(i)) as D[i] what I meant is that the evaluation ep(i) returns a graph (this is what I wanted to say here eval(D(G), ep(i)) = D[i]) but indeed I was mistaken. > ep(i) is not defined, but I assume it shall return a graph? > but then in the next definition you call > > eval(D(ep(i)), P_1) Then, in eval(D(ep(i)), P_1) what I mean is that I evaluate the pattern P_1 in the graph returned by ep(i) > either there's some overloading on the function ep() ongoing here, or I don't understand what's actually going on here. Then you write "if i in dom(ep)" where dom(ep) is not defined. what I meant here is that i has to be an URI, if it is not, it should return the empty set > For now, I am more leaning towards dropping 3.2 and getting 3.1 straight, following the comments we gave. > I can try to rephrase it, and if you still do not like it I will drop it. cheers, Carlos > best, > Axel > > On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:12, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 10:53:34 UTC