- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:55:34 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On Jan 14, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> we ask to finalise the text of Section 2.5. >> Me too. >> >> [snip rebuttal of pat] >> >>> At this point it is becoming too late. We ask that either our text is >>> used (with possible editorial changes to discuss), >> In fact, I though we agreed to do this. I don't know of any technincal >> errors or issues with the proposed text, > > ... to wit, > http://www.w3.org/mid/2B187D7F-B385-48E5-B312-4963896ABB30@inf.unibz.it > January 14, 2006 9:11:08 AM CST which is msg: 0110 > if I'm following correctly... Received here at 15:11 local time Saturday. I note that Monday (yesterday) was a US holiday. This text is different from 0300 (Jan 5) as discussed in the telecon of 10/Jan. For example: 0110 --------------------- Definition: Basic Graph Pattern matching. A Basic Graph Pattern is a set of Triple Patterns. A basic graph pattern, BGP, matches on graph G with pattern solution S if: - G simply entails S( G OrderedMerge BGP ) - the graph S( G OrderedMerge BGP ) is an RDF graph - the bnodes involved in S are among the bnodes appearing in G. 0030 --------------------- Definition: Basic Graph Pattern matching. A Basic Graph Pattern is a set of Triple Patterns. A basic graph pattern, BGP, matches on graph G with pattern solution S if: G entails S(G RDFmerge BGP) In addition, the bnodes involved in a pattern solution S can only be among the bnodes appearing in G. --------------------- The minutes of the 10/Jan telecon record: """ Enrico: the content of 0030 is roughly correct, but PatH is welcome to tinker with it Andy: this is clear except for result sets <DanC> AndyS: I see how to incorproate 0030 , save for results set... """ My intention hasn't changed. I intend to use these definitions. The Jan 14 text is better. I have asked one use case which I have not had an onlist answer to. Offlist, I have two different answers from two different people. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:55:52 UTC