From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 10/24/01
>I vote for none of the ``above''.
>
>The answer should be equivalent to a two-member set of pairs.
>
>One such answer could be
>
> { < <patsCar> , <blue> > ,
> < _:b , <red> > }
>
>Another possible answer could be
>
> ?x = <patsCar>, ?y = { <blue> }
> ?x = <_:b>, ?y = { <red> }
Yes to both. Never mind the details; the basic point is that the
answer is a set of *bindings*, not just a set of terms or things.
(Right?)
>This second version could allow for a more-natural representation of some
>answers, at a certain price.
>
>I am torn between these two. Formally, I like the simplicity of the
>former. Pragmatically, I want the answer to reflect any ``nesting'' in the
>query and thus like the second. (Yes, there is little possibility of
>nesting in RDF.)
But we can all live in hope, right?
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST