Re: inconcistency in CBD definition in Updated specification of Concise Bounded Descriptions

On 6/5/05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 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?
> 

Hmmm... it seems there was an editorial error here. The original text
(or at least the original intent) was "This results in a subgraph where
the *terminal* nodes are...".

It is quite true that the present text is not correct -- though in any case
the definition itself is correct.

Given the amount of time it took to get this revision published, and
given that the W3C seems to have no reasonable process for fixing
even the smallest typo or error, I don't anticipate it being corrected
in the near future.

Hopefully it will not prove too distracting and troublesome.

Patrick


> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>

Received on Sunday, 5 June 2005 16:50:01 UTC