- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:05:49 -0600
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>On 31 Jan 2006, at 18:31, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>Let me compare 3 different semantic definitions of e-matching. The first >>>is "Pat's" definition >> >>For the record, this is the definition that we all agreed on >>informally after extended email discussions, > >For the record: >No. We agreed on the orderedmerge version (I remember a looong phone >call with you when you agreed on our Nov. 2 document), and you >volunteered to propose a text. The text that came in at the end was >your union text, over which we never agreed. Ah, I had understood that we did reach an (admittedly informal) agreement on that. But never mind, let us move on. Do you understand the point about bnodes vs. bnode identifiers in documents? And do you see how this makes it unnecessary to introduce BGP', since the simpler definition is already fully general? And do you see that allowing BGP (not BGP') and G' to share bnodes can introduce unintended scope errors when one tries to form a CONSTRUCT graph by applying the answer binding (introducing bnodes from G') to copies of BGP? Pat > >Pat >""" > >--e. > >Attachment converted: betelguese2:smime 19.p7s ( / ) (00230BBE) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:06:01 UTC