W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [Graphs] g-snap vs. g-box and graph equality

From: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:56:53 -0400
Message-Id: <9BA353F7-8769-48AC-AF43-E9C1D114FBD0@talis.com>
Cc: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On Apr 6, 2011, at 23:37, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:

> On 4/6/2011 11:30 PM, Alex Hall wrote:
>> Just trying to get a handle on people's expectations around named graphs
>> as g-snaps vs. g-boxes as it relates to graph equality (and inequality).
>> 
>> Given the two notional TriG/Qurtle fragments which we would like to combine:
>> 
>> file-1.trig:
>> :G1 { :a :b :c } .
>> :G2 { :d :e :f } .
>> 
>> file-2.trig:
>> :G1 { :a :b :d } .
>> :G3 { :d :e :f } .
>> 
>> My impression so far is that some people want to treat named graphs as
>> g-snaps, and some as g-boxes.  Suppose for a second that we treat them
>> as naming g-snaps.  Without expressing an opinion one way or another, I ask:
>> 
>> 1.  Is the fact that G1 is mapped to two different g-snaps an inconsistency?
>> 
>> 2.  From the fact that G2 and G3 are mapped to the same g-snap, can we
>> conclude that G2 and G3 are in fact the same resource?
> 
> I'm guessing that because of the OWA that the answer to both is "no", though I'm not really sure?

I certainly hope that the answer to both is 'no'.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Lee
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Alex
>> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:57:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT