Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5

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