W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Defn of BGP-equivalence (was: Re: Editorial changes in Section 2.5)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:38:36 +0000
Message-ID: <43DE08CC.5070701@hp.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Pat Hayes wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2006, at 22:47, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> option b)
>>>> """
>>>> Two basic graph patterns are graph-equivalent if they are the same 
>>>> up to bnode renaming.
>>>> """
>>> I suggest we use the informal version, but include a link to the 
>>> normative formal version already published. Its a good idea 
>>> generally to link to other specs rather than repeat content:
>>> Two basic graph patterns are 
>>> <ahref="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-graph-equality> 
>>> graph-equivalent</a> if they are the same up to bnode renaming.
>> I agree about choosing (b), but please note that the old definition 
>> does *not* work for BGPs because there are variables as well to map; 
>> so we can't refer to it directly (unless you say explicitly that it 
>> is the same by considering variables as well).
> Ah yes, of course. Damn. Let me think about that more.

It seems inconsistent to informal describe BGP-equivalence yet, e.g., define 
E-Entailment regime.

I agree with Pat's comment on referencing other specs but BGP-equivalence is 
one generalization of the RDF definition.

For the moment, I have included the formal definition.  There is text for the 
informal relationship to RDF graph equivalence.


Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 12:39:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC