Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

On 30 Jan 2006, at 20:26, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> On 30 Jan 2006, at 19:01, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>> Enrico Franconi wrote:
>>>> """
>>>> Definition: Basic Graph Pattern E-matching
>>>> (...)
>>>> """
>>>
>>> Awaiting consensus.
>
> This definition was the outcome of the WG decision last week.   
> There needs to be stronger reasons for changing it.

I still believe that this definition requires a restyling, due to:

1) missing explicit quantification (some term has been properly  
introduced before being mentioned: B and BGP')

2) the notion of "introduced by" should be replaced by the more  
precise "in the range of"

3) we need to emphasise that G' and B are somehow fixed - so that we  
can ignore mentioning them from now on (as we actually do whenever we  
mention matching in the rest of the document).

Let me propose a minimal editorial change wrt the current version.

Current:
"""
Given an entailment regime E, a basic graph pattern BGP, and RDF  
graph G, with scoping graph G', then BGP E-matches with pattern  
solution S on graph G with respect to scoping set B if:

     * BGP' is a basic graph pattern that is graph-equivalent to BGP
     * G' and BGP' do not share any blank node labels.
     * (G' union S(BGP')) is a well-formed RDF graph for E-entailment
     * G E-entails (G' union S(BGP'))
     * The RDF terms introduced by S all occur in B.
"""

Proposed:
"""
Given an entailment regime E, a scoping set B, a basic graph pattern  
BGP, an RDF graph G, a scoping graph G' for G, then BGP E-matches  
with pattern solution S on graph G with respect to the fixed scoping  
graph G' and scoping set B if:

     * there is some BGP',
       a basic graph pattern that is graph-equivalent to BGP
     * G' and BGP' do not share any blank node labels
     * (G' union S(BGP')) is a well-formed RDF graph for E-entailment
     * G E-entails (G' union S(BGP'))
     * the RDF terms in the range S all occur in B
"""

cheers
--e.