- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:31:16 +0000
- To: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:53, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > On 01/03/2011 7:31, Axel Polleres wrote: > > Similar to Lee, the definition in 3.2 honestly doesn't make much sense to me. > > What is ep(i) ? > ep(is) is a function that retrieves the graph pointed by the URI i from where and how? > > you define eval(D(G), ep(i)) as D[i] > what I meant is that the evaluation ep(i) returns a graph (this is what > I wanted to say here eval(D(G), ep(i)) = D[i]) but indeed I was mistaken. > > ep(i) is not defined, but I assume it shall return a graph? > > but then in the next definition you call > > > > eval(D(ep(i)), P_1) > Then, in eval(D(ep(i)), P_1) what I mean is that I evaluate the pattern > P_1 in the graph returned by ep(i) > > either there's some overloading on the function ep() ongoing here, or I don't understand what's actually going on here. Then you write "if i in dom(ep)" where dom(ep) is not defined. > what I meant here is that i has to be an URI, if it is not, it should return the empty set I still don't get it, to be honest with you :-( > > For now, I am more leaning towards dropping 3.2 and getting 3.1 straight, following the comments we gave. > > > I can try to rephrase it, and if you still do not like it I will drop it. I prefer whatever brings us faster to a working definition. :-) Seriously, there were problems with and comments on 3.1 as well... are these addressed already? Thanks for your efforts, best, Axel > cheers, > > Carlos > > best, > > Axel > > > > On 1 Mar 2011, at 10:12, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 11:32:53 UTC