- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:44:58 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Ivan Herman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > In 12.3.1: I was wondering whether, mathematically, it is not more > precise to say in the definition of the cardinality of mu that P(BGP) is > a subgraph of G. P = mu(sigma) is a mapping and not a (sub)graph yes, I agree - I've changed the text to: """ card[Omega](mu) = card[Omega](number of distinct RDF instance mappings, sigma, such that P = mu(sigma) is a pattern instance mapping and P(BGP) is a subgraph of G) """ > > In 12.5: Evaluation of a graph pattern: > Patten -> Pattern (in the title) > In the first line, shouldn't it be eval(D(D[IRI]),P)? > shouldn't it be OMEGA(?var->i) instead of OMEGA(?v->i)? Corrected. > > Ivan These changes have been made to the editors' working draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html v1.81 I hope this message addresses your comments to your satisfaction. If it does, please let us know by replying to this message to say so. If you change the line to include [CLOSED] it will help the scripts used for tracking comments. Andy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 16:45:10 UTC