- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:53:07 +0000
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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." Corrections noted and applied. > > Definition: Basic Graph Pattern > Add: "* For simple entailment, the scoping set B includes only the > RDF terms in G'" Added after the definition because the definition is general and not restricted to simple entailment. We can have a special definition that is BGP under simple entailment if you want. > > cheers > --e. > Andy
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 11:54:55 UTC