W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2013

RDF-ISSUE-140 (dataset-comparison): RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman) [RDF Concepts]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:54:54 +0000
Message-Id: <E1V79os-0004pS-2n@nelson.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-140 (dataset-comparison): RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman) [RDF Concepts]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/140

Raised by: Ivan Herman
On product: RDF Concepts

I have a question/comment on this:

[[
4.1 RDF Dataset Comparison

Two RDF datasets (the RDF dataset D1 with default graph DG1 and named graph NG1 and the RDF dataset D2 with default graph DG2 and named graph NG2) are dataset-isomorphic if and only if:

	• DG1 and DG2 are graph-isomorphic;
	• For each (n1,g1) in NG1, there exists (n2,g2) in NG2 such that n1=n2 and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic;
	• For each (n2,g2) in NG2, there exists (n1,g1) in NG1 such that n1=n2 and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic.

]]

A graph name can now be a blank node. Wouldn't it be appropriate to use the 'M' mapping of section 3.6 for the graph names, too? Or are we deliberately silent on this?

Ivan

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0008.html]
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 19:54:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 August 2013 19:54:57 UTC