Re: The theoreticians got rid of the OrderedMerge

Basic editing done based on this text.

(I still need to go through sections earlier than 2.5 to check consistency and 
  some of Pat's editorial comments).

	Andy

Enrico Franconi wrote:
> [we have done our homework to make the crowd happy]
> 
> To Andy:
> 
> We have a satisfactory set of definitions that do use the union and  
> don't use the OrderedMerge.
> 
> Pat's proposal was unsatisfactory (is not upward compatible), but the  
> following is upward compatible, and it is just a minor (but crucial!)  
> rewording wrt Pat's proposal.
> 
> This requires only a minimal rewording wrt rq23 1.613 as follows:
> 
> a) Delete the definition of OrderedMerge :-)
> 
> b) This is the new definition for basic graph pattern matching:
> 
> Definition:  Basic Graph Pattern
> A Basic Graph Pattern is a set of Triple Patterns.
> Given an entailment regime E, a basic graph pattern BGP, and RDF  
> graph G, with scoping graph G', then BGP E-matches with pattern  
> solution S on graph G with respect to scoping set B if:
>      * (G' Union S(BGP')) is a well-formed RDF graph for E-entailment
>      * G E-entails (G' Union S(BGP'))
>      * The identifiers introduced by S all occur in B
>      * BGP' is an RDF Graph that is graph-equivalent to BGP
>      * G' and BGP' do not share any bnode name
> 
> c) Delete:
> "If the scoping graph G' is such that it does not share blank nodes  
> with basic graph pattern, then the above definition can be simplified  
> to use a graph union instead of an ordered merge."
> 
> d) Delete all the @@**
> 
> e) the rest remains the same as in rq23 1.613
> 
> Now we have exactly what Pat is asking for, and FUB is happy as well.
> 
> --e.

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 15:52:07 UTC