Re: Wording change (was : Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns)

On 19 Jan 2006, at 19:32, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Is it fixable? Who knows, probably yes, with some other lenghty  
>> proposal you may throw at us.
>
> I honestly do not think this is either lengthy or hard to state  
> precisely, or to understand. It comes up naturally as a kind of  
> side observation in the text that justifies why BGP and G' should  
> be standardized apart. It is entirely about allowing bnodes in G'  
> and BGP to be in a shared scope, or not; and this is exactly how it  
> would be stated. It isn't done by an elegant mathematical conjuring  
> trick (which, to repeat, as one definition-hacker to another, I  
> actually quite admire, but find hard to explain.)

That's my point. Your idea does not look formal and elegant to me and  
most importantly it relies mostly on definitions in natural language.  
Our definition is three formal bullets and it contains everything it  
should be told.

My final proposal: we use our idea with orderedmerge (which has  
already been massaged in a nice text in <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ 
DataAccess/rq23>, that still contains few minor imprecisions I'll  
point out in another mail), and immediately after Andy will provide  
the explanation of it by showing how it would be equivalent to the  
union and a more restricted scoping graph, exactly in the way he says  
that it is equivalent to subgraph matching.

Can you buy this compromise?

--e.

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:23:23 UTC