inconcistency in CBD definition in Updated specification of Concise Bounded Descriptions

>From http://www.w3.org/Submission/2005/SUBM-CBD-20050603/

************

Definition:

    Given a particular node (the starting node) in a particular RDF graph
    (the source graph), a subgraph of that particular graph, taken to
    comprise a concise bounded description of the resource denoted by the
    starting node, can be identified as follows:

       1. Include in the subgraph all statements in the source graph where
          the subject of the statement is the starting node;
       2. Recursively, for all statements identified in the subgraph thus
          far having a blank node object, include in the subgraph all
          statements in the source graph where the subject of the statement
          is the blank node in question and which are not already included
          in the subgraph.
       3. Recursively, for all statements included in the subgraph thus
          far, for all reifications of each statement in the source graph,
          include the concise bounded description beginning from the
          rdf:Statement node of each reification.

    This results in a subgraph where the object nodes are either URI
    references, literals, or blank nodes not serving as the subject of any
    statement in the graph.

************

How can 

	for all statements [included?] in the subgraph thus far having a
	blank node object, include in the subgraph all statements in the
	source graph where the subject of the statement is the blank node
	in question ...

and

	This results in a subgraph where the object nodes are [...], or
	blank nodes not serving as the subject of any statement in the
	graph.

possibly be reconciled?


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

Received on Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:21:43 UTC