- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:33:14 +0000
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Enrico Franconi wrote: > Regarding the points below (about which I'm still waiting), That text (in the definition) was something that the WG made a decision about. I don't think I have license to make changes without further a WG decision (and you weren't there on Tuesday). Dan - can I apply the changes? Or apply them for WG review? > I got > further feedback about being unclear the 'fixed' role of BGP' and B, Probably helpful if you said where from. > which in fact do not appear anymore after section 2.5. We need some > text emphasing this fact; something like at the end of 2.5.1 > "From now on we will say that a BGP matches with pattern solution S > on graph G, omitting the specific E-entailment, the fixed scoping set > B, and the fixed scoping graph BGP'." > > Does it make sense? Yes > cheers > --e. Andy > > > On 4 Feb 2006, at 12:01, Enrico Franconi wrote: > >> 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. >
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 13:33:24 UTC