- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:17:38 -0600
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>On 21 Jan 2006, at 20:43, Enrico Franconi wrote: > >> >>I propose to have an explicit text to present the reader the >>alternative semantics Its only an alternative form of words which gets the same result. The semantics isn't changed at all. >>by Pat in a simple way, immediately before "As an example of a >>Basic Graph Pattern:", as follows: >> >>"In the case of simple entailment, if the scoping graph G' is such >>that it does not share blank nodes with BGP, then the above >>definition can be simplified to use a standard RDF merge instead of >>an OrderedMerge." > >Ooops! I meant a union, not a merge! > >"In the case of simple entailment, if the scoping graph G' is such >that it does not share blank nodes with BGP, then the above >definition can be simplified to take the union between G' and BGP, >instead of an OrderedMerge." This works for any kind of entailment, which is why I prefer the simpler wording: and then we don't need this odd notion of ordered merging at all. In fact, I'd suggest that the simpler wording should be normative, as it expresses the intended meaning more directly and straightforwardly. Also, it keeps distinct issues separate. Exactly how an engine handles bnode scoping (what gets re-written, or maybe use hash-tables, whatever) really is an implementation decision. We shouldn't build into the entailment clause what is in effect an implicit decision about how to implement bnode scoping. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 17:17:45 UTC