- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 20:16:44 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <C501C32B-2ED5-4BAE-BF60-6CA6ECAE5FCC@3roundstones.com>
On May 10, 2013, at 12:03, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > On May 10, 2013, at 6:54 AM, David Wood wrote: > >> >> On May 10, 2013, at 04:11, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote: >> >>> Le 09/05/2013 22:51, David Wood a écrit : >>>> Thanks, Pat. The editors' draft has been changed. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dave >>>> -- >>>> http://about.me/david_wood >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 9, 2013, at 02:35, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the conjunction of two RDF graphs is their merge. >>>>> >>>>> // >>>>> >>>>> the conjunction of two RDF graphs is their union. >>> >>> Huh, what? This is not correct. Please revert. >> >> Concepts does not currently define the term merge. If you would like to use "merge" (which I agree would make more sense in this context), then we should formally define what a merge looks like or reference where it is defined. >> >> I see that "merge" is defined in section 3 of Semantics and equated to a union: >> [[ >> "A **union or merge** may be represented by a new RDF source, or may be thought of as a conceptual entity when describing RDF processing." >> ]] >> (emphasis mine) >> >> So, I propose to revert the word "union" back to "merge" as Antoine suggested and add a reference to section 3 of Semantics. Is that acceptable to everyone? > > No, check the newer version of semantics. Following discussion, it now does not equate merge with union. > > I would prefer to either use "union" or omit this altogether from Concepts. (It belongs better in Semantics in any case.) The whole idea of a merge is archaic and confusing, and should not be mentioned in Concepts. No RDF process uses merge; that is, standardizing apart blank nodes (as opposed to standardizing apart blank node identifiers, which is a different matter altogether.) That's fine with me and I'll do it unless we hear from Antoine. I presume that responds to his concern, though. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood > > Pat > >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> -- >> http://about.me/david_wood >> >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pat >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 >>>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Antoine Zimmermann >>> ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol >>> École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne >>> 158 cours Fauriel >>> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 >>> France >>> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 >>> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 >>> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Sunday, 12 May 2013 00:17:07 UTC