- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:46:18 -0600
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>Patrick J. Hayes wrote:
>>Reading through, some miscellaneous comments/questions/suggestions(?).
>>------
>>2.1.4
>>"Triple Patterns are grouped together with {}(braces)."
>>Possibly mention here that these groupings determine scope of bnode
>>identifiers(?) <<Do they, in fact? That is, should we read
>>{{_:a :p :q .}
>>{_:a :r :b .}}
>>as having two bnodes in it, or one? Im presuming two, as otherwise
>>what are the {} boundaries for? >>
>
>It's two BGPs.
So, just to check I really have got this right, in this example there
would be two different bnodes, one in each BGP, even though those
BGPs use the same bnodeID. Right?
...
>>Triple pattern: Why not allow bnodes in property position as well,
>>with the same disclaimers about not matching any current RDF graph?
>>There isn't any good semantic reason to forbid that case either.
>>(If this would require a WG decision, forget it :-)
>
>The syntax allows it. Defn fixed.
>
>Definition: Triple Pattern
>A triple pattern is member of the set:
> (RDF-T union V) x (I union RDF-B union V) x (RDF-T union V)
>
>
>(Could even add literals for complete symmetry. Not done as literals
>in the predicate would be rather confusing for no value.)
Agreed.
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 Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:46:26 UTC