- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:57:53 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 20 Jan 2006, at 00:31, Enrico Franconi wrote: > On 20 Jan 2006, at 00:23, Enrico Franconi wrote: >> 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. > > Andy: > > Definition: Scoping Graph > Delete: ", with respect to scoping set B," and "and uses terms from > scoping set B". > > "The scoping graph uses those terms to give a graph that is > equivalent to the graph to be matched." ==> "The scoping graph > makes the graph to be matched independent on the chosen bnode names." > > Definition: Basic Graph Pattern > Add: "* For simple entailment, the scoping set B includes only the > RDF terms in G'" The reason for this request is to allow for smooth extensions. In fact, for the basic OWL-DL extension, B contains all URIs excluding RDF/RDFS/OWL vocabularies (i.e., no bnodes), while G' should still be graph-equivalent to G (and so it should have bnodes too). cheers --e.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 05:58:07 UTC