W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: MT Bug?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 09 Jun 2003 12:00:49 +0100
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1055156449.2720.14.camel@mcbride-b-7>

I just noticed that Peter picked this up before I did:
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0224.html

Brian


On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 13:42, Brian McBride wrote:
> Fiddling about with the MT, I noticed:
> 
> The closure rule se1 is defined such that given a bnode as the object of
> a triple, it will generate a similar triple with a different bnode. 
> When applied recursively, this will generate an infinite number of
> triples.  Similarly for se2.
> 
> The current official Ed's draft of the MT
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#ClosRules
> 
> states:
> 
> [[
> 2. Apply the rules se1 and se2 and the following RDF closure rules
> recursively to generate all legal RDF triples (i.e. until none of the
> rules apply or the graph is unchanged.) Here xxx and yyy stand for any
> URIref, blank node or literal, aaa for any URIref.
> ]]
> 
> Given the definitions of se1 and se2, the terminating condition can
> never be met, unless the definition of 'aaa' is intended to overrides
> that given in the definition of se1 and se2.  I'm confused.
> 
> I suggest that the MT adopt a uniform terminology throughout, e.g. 'aaa'
> always means just a URIref throughtout, or whatever convention the
> editor finds most appropriate.
> 
> What is the current position on the size of the closures generated by
> these rules?  Is it the intent to make them as small as we reasonably
> can?  Does it matter?  Was it the editors intention that the rules
> generate this infinite set of triples?
> 
> Brian
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 01:56:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:55 EDT