W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: mergeg in current Semantics ED

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:30:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVzz3cmfiwAVvEbZzMthcgvjMsaGxmeWMjfm=d7inE2TDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>
> > There is a problem with the definition of merge in the draft.
> >
> > I'm using math notations instead of a concrete serialisation syntax
> because I want to show things at the abstract syntax level, which is what
> RDF Semantics relies on.
> >
> > Let us take a blank node b from the set of blank nodes. Let us consider
> the two graphs G1 = {(<s1>,<p1>,b)} and G2 = {(<s2>,<p2>,b)}.
>
> You have the same bnode in both graphs, so they must be in the same scope,
> right? For example, both are subgraphs of a larger graph, or both in the
> same dataset.
>
> >
> > Let us ask ourselves whether {G1,G2} entails:
> >
> > G = {(<s1>,<p1>,b),(<s2>,<p2>,b)}
> >
> > The answer is trivially NO wrt the current semantics of the ED.
>
> If those really are the same b, then the answer is YES, and I claim that
> it should be.
>
>
> I don't know how you are going to get this to go through.

peter
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 18:31:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT