- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:07:13 -0500
- 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