- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:13:20 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: >> 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? Yes - that's my understanding of the design. It comes from the fact that entailment in BGP matching makes no reference to anything going on in a query. Andy > > ... > >>> 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 >
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 10:13:30 UTC