-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
Fixes the definition of evaluation of property path with OneOrMorePath #350
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| where <var>V</var> is the set of RDF terms that is returned by the | ||
| following algorithm. | ||
|
|
||
| Let <var>X</var> = <a href="#defn_reachableTerms"><var>reachableTerms</var></a>(<var>x</var>, <var>ppe</var>) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let reachableTerms(x:term, ppe) be the set of RDF terms
reached by repeated matches of ppe,
when starting at RDF term x.
"reacheable" to me means an arbitrary length match e.g. :p*
"Evaluation of OneOrMorePath" uses it as "one step".
I think the definition of reachableTerm is tying to be one step but "reachable", and "repeated matches", imply to me an arbitrary length match.
Maybe "all matches of the ppe" and maybe call it "pathMatches" or "oneStep"/"oneApplication"
"neighbors" might be possible but ppe is not just length 1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@afs I agree that this part is misleading, at best. In fact, I would say that the reachableTerms function is ill-defined. Notice, however, that this is not an issue of this PR, not even an issue of something we have done in v1.2 now. The function that is called 'reachableTerms' now was called 'eval' in 1.1 (indeed, like several other "eval" functions in 1.1)---see it being used in the definition of OneOrMorePath in 1.1 and its "definition" in the context of the ALP function in 1.1. I will open a separate issue to address this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Issue created: #352
Co-authored-by: Andy Seaborne <[email protected]>
Closes #267 (and adds a note for #349)
Preview | Diff