- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:22:35 -0600
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 13:33 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > 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? It's been very difficult to get all the interested parties on this issue in sync. I'm not inclined to re-consider our 26 Jan decision without a really compelling argument that it's broken. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/att-0298/26-dawg-minutes.html#item04 If this is only an editorial problem, it can get fixed during CR. A test case showing it's a substantive problem would be a compelling argument to re-consider the decision. Andy, I'd rather you did _not_ change the decisions that we agreed on 26 Jan. Enrico, I hope you find this acceptable. > > > 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. > > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 14:22:46 UTC