W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: scope review and an altenative phrasing.

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:49:50 -0700
Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F3E1C60C-B4D0-4522-88B2-2B5005E347FE@gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Somehow I'm missing the reason that scope has to show up in Semantics at all.

Isn't it sufficient to just say the bnode mapping in the semantics is from the bnodes in the graph and that combining RDF graphs takes their union?  If the graphs don't share bnodes then you get the standard behaviour.  If the graphs to share bnodes then you get the bnode-sharing behaviour.  The condition on the lemma stating that a set of graphs entails their union then is expressed in terms of the union, which turns out to be something like for each bnode in the union one of the constituent graphs contains all the triples in the union for that bnode.  No need to talk bring forward any other machinery.

This, of course, punts on how bnodes are identified in surface syntaxes.  That's up to the particular surface syntax, of course, but Concepts can provide guidance, and bring forward the notion of the scope of bnode identifiers.

Received on Sunday, 17 March 2013 20:50:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:26 UTC