- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:01:46 +0000
- To: SPARQL WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Birte Glimm > Sent: 24 September 2009 15:00 > To: SPARQL Working Group > Subject: Definition of Basic Graph Pattern Matching & Pattern Instance > Mapping > ... > First, a pattern instance mapping P is defined as a composition of an > RDF instance mapping sigma with a solution mapping mu, i.e., > P(x)=mu(sigma(x)), see 12.3.1. The domain of an RDF instance mapping > is, however, the set of blank nodes and its range is the set of > literals, blank nodes, and IRIs. Now the domain of mu is the set of > variables, which means we cannot really compose the two. The range of > the first is disjoint from the domain of the second. What I would > rather say is that P is a pair (mu, sigma). I've put this on the errata page. We could use a form of wording in the entailment doc and remove it from there. While I agree the wording can be improved, I believe the usage "Pattern Instance Mapping" is using the functions as the implied mapping from pattern to pattern. Andy
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 12:02:19 UTC