Re: mergeg in current Semantics ED

How is this all supposed to work in practice?

Does it mean that an implementation has to do something special for bnodes
that cross between graphs?

Or is this just something to make the semantics work right, and has no
external consequences?  If this is not the case, and I think that it may
not be, then the WG should discuss the issue.

A different way to go would be to just have interpretations map b-nodes
directly.  This would treat bnodes as skolems - the only difference between
a bnode and a skolem is that a bnode *cannot* escape into the wild.

peter


On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> Ah. Yes, now I see your (and Antoine's) point. Antoine, sorry I was slow.
>
> I think we need a new idea to handle this.
>
> Observation: a bnode scope might extend over several graphs, but a graph
> cannot cross bnode scopes. So bnode scopes are a 'larger' syntactic unit
> than graphs. Given a bnode scope, the set of triples contained in it is an
> RDF graph, call it the /scope graph/. Every RDF graph is a subgraph of some
> scope graph.
>
> A graph is /complete/ (/saturated/? /scoped/? /whole/? /coherent/?
> /molecular/?) when, if it contains a bnode, then it contains all triples in
> the scope graph which contain that bnode. That is, for each bnode b in the
> scope, it either does not contain b, or it contains every triple containing
> b.
>
> Ground graphs and scope graphs are always complete. A union (= merge) of
> complete graphs is complete.  Any set of complete graphs entails its union.
> Antoine's example shows that this may not be true for incomplete graphs.
>
> Comments, before I start editing?
>
> Pat
>
>
>