- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:52:57 +0100
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: phayes@ihmc.us, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I completely agree with Jos. I don't see the counter-example here. --e. On 27 Jan 2006, at 23:53, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote: > > Pat Hayes wrote: > [...] >> it is broken, since it allows the bnodes in BGP to overlap with those >> in G'. Example: >> >> G' is >> >> :a :p _:b . >> :a :q :e . >> >> and BGP is {?x :q _:b}. With this definition, this succeeds with x >> bound to :a, since there is a bnode variant of BGP, say {?x :q _:bb} >> , which satisfies the conditions; but the corresponding instance of >> BGP itself, when unioned with the scoping graph, is not entailed by >> the scoping graph. > > I take it that G is > > :a :p _:bbb . > :a :q :e . > > and that G' is > > :a :p _:b . > :a :q :e . > > and that BGP is > > {?x :q _:b} > > and that BGP' is > > {?x :q _:bb} > > and that the instance S(BPG') is > > :a :q _:bb. > > and anyhow find that G simply entails (G' union S(BGP')) > i.e. > > :a :p _:bbb. > :a :q :e. > > simply entails > > :a :p _:b. > :a :q :e. > :a :q _:bb. > > no? > > -- > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ >
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 23:53:05 UTC