- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:58:29 -0600
- To: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 14:50 -0500, Geoff Chappell wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:02 PM > > To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org; Geoff Chappell > > Subject: Re: Testcase comment and question > > > > > Both the current editor's draft and the latest public working > > draft give this formal specification: > > > > [[ > > Definition: Optional Matching > > > > Given graph pattern GP1, and graph pattern GP2, let GP = (GP1 union > > GP2). > > > > The optional match of GP2 of graph G, given GP1, defines a pattern > > solution PS such that: > > > > If GP matches G, then the solutions of GP is the patterns solutions of > > GP else the solutions are the pattern solutions of GP1 matching G. > > ]] > > Thanks. I guess it wasn't fair to imply there was no definition. I do think, > though, that this one will need some tightening up. For example it seems to > imply that if _any_ solutions can be found in GP, then no solutions will be > used from GP1. Yes, that's what it says. > And assuming that's not the case, Er... why not? Am I missing something? > it doesn't have much to say > about how to determine exactly which solutions of GP1 are disallowed because > they are solutions of GP (especially in the tricky cases where vars(GP) != > vars(GP1)). > > Geoff -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 21:58:31 UTC