W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2005

Re: spruced up definitions

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:07:13 -0500
Message-Id: <p06200700beb8f10f49ce@[10.100.0.32]>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>

>Thanks for the comments and rewokred definitions.
>
>I'll process them, send you an updated set of definitions as well as send any
>questions I have.
>
>One question for now - if we go with "subgraph", is there any reason why the
>predicate should not be a blank node?

In the pattern, you mean? I guess not, though if we allow this then 
we might want to draw reader attention to the non-RDF-ish nature of 
those patterns, and that they amount to asking "does a predicate 
exist such that...". That is, any answer binding must instantiate the 
bnode to a URIref. Or, of course, we could just prohibit them :-)

BTW, I don't see that this is affected by the subgraph/entailment 
decision. Am I missing something?

Pat


>
>	Andy
>
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>See http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/TEMP/DEFS_pat-1.html  Not fully 
>>complete, questions in red.
>>
>>Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 15:06:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:43 UTC