- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:32:37 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <17DA2396-9517-4FA9-B74A-88574882A766@inf.unibz.it>
On 30 Jan 2006, at 19:01, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Enrico Franconi wrote: > >> 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. I'm waiting for Pat's OK, then. >> "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 Yes, but the proposed change is definitely much more understandable, I believe. I'm waiting for Pat's OK, then. >> """ >> 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. I'm waiting for Pat's OK, then. > 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. After the definition of Basic Graph Pattern E-matching: "The introduction of the basic graph pattern BGP' in the above definition makes the query independent of the chosen blank node names in it." >> "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. Got it, but still I find the sentence not very contextualised. So what about: "The scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in G'." ==> "In the case of simple entailment as defined in this document, the scoping set B is the set of all RDF terms in G'." cheers --e.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 18:32:46 UTC