Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

Enrico Franconi wrote:
> "A basic graph patterns is a set of triple patterns and forms the  
> basis of SPARQL query matching. Matching a basic graph pattern is  
> defined in terms of unspecified entailment to allow for future  
> extension of the language."
> 
> ==>
> 
> "A basic graph patterns is a set of triple patterns and forms the  
> core of any SPARQL query on some dataset. Matching a basic graph  
> pattern on a dataset is defined in terms of a generic entailment to  
> allow for future extension of the language."
> 
> ;;;;

This is a change to the text you originally proposed which used "unspecifed" - 
right?  Please make this clear as it helps me track what's going on.

Changed "unspecifed" to generic and some other rewording but BGPs match 
graphs, not datasets.


> 
> "Examples of other E-entailment regimes are, RDF entailment..."
> 
> ==>
> 
> "Examples of other E-entailment regimes are RDF entailment..."
> 
> ;;;;

Done.

> 
> I guess that in "Definition: Basic Graph Pattern equivalence", the  
> sentence
> "that maps blank nodes to blank nodes and maps variables, literals  
> and IRIs to themselves."
> should be deleted.
> 
> ;;;;

Done.

> 
> Why do we still have a long definition of Scoping Set, while we  
> probably just want to say that it is an arbitrary subset of the RDF  
> Terms (as we say after: "A scoping set B is some set of RDF terms.")?
> Maybe you have an argument for it.

I am waiting for agreement within the WG in nearby areas.  The stress on all 
IRIs and all literals and some blank nodes was suggested at one time and is 
left for now.

> 
> ;;;;
> 
> "A scoping set B is some set of RDF terms. This is an arbitrary  
> parameter in this definition. The contents of B should be restricted  
> to correspond appropriately to different entailment regimes."
> 
> ==>
> 
> "A scoping set B is some set of RDF terms. The scoping set restricts  
> the values of variable assignments in a solution. The scoping set may  
> be characterised differently by different entailment regimes."
> 
> ;;;

Not done.  This is the text that Pat proposed and you agreed with.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0311

We seem to be be trashing on small scale editorial changes.  It might be 
better to let the current round of discussions settle and then see where we are.

What would help me is one sentence that captures the role of BGP' in
the same way as we have text for the scoping graph and scoping set.

> 
> Regarding the Definition of Basic Graph Pattern E-matching, I still  
> prefer something closer to my proposal, since you want to have the  
> right scoping of the parameters (in the current version, the  
> situation of BGP' is not clean). You also want to have a more precise  
> word instead of "introduced".
> 
> """
> Definition: Basic Graph Pattern E-matching
> Let E-entails be an E-entailment regime,
> BGP a basic graph pattern,
> G an RDF graph,
> G' a scoping graph for G,
> B a scoping set, and
> S a pattern solution.
> BGP E-matches G with pattern solution S with respect to a scoping  
> graph G' and scoping set B,
> if there is a basic graph pattern BGP' that is graph equivalent to BGP,
> such that:
> 1/ G' and BGP' do not share any blank node labels,
> 2/ (G' union S(BGP')) is a well-formed graph for the E-entailment,
> 3/ G E-entails (G' union S(BGP')),
> 4/ The range of S is equal to B.
> """
> 
> ;;;

Awaiting consensus.  (Resending changes is very confusing by the way - they 
have to checked against the last version sent for micro-differences.)

> 
> "These definitions allow for future extensions to SPARQL. This  
> document defines SPARQL for simple entailment.
> The scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in G'."
> 
> ==>
> 
> "These definitions allow for future extensions to SPARQL. This  
> document defines SPARQL for simple entailment, with the further  
> restriction that the scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in G'."
> 

Not done.  I think stressing the scoping set restriction is helpful and inline 
with the earlier remarks that different entailment regimes restrict B is their 
own way.

> 
> --e.

	Andy

Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 18:03:26 UTC