W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Review: SPARQL 1.1 Federated Extensions

From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:53:02 -0300
Message-ID: <4D6CD00E.2070005@fi.upm.es>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT