- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:12:02 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> >> One note: the current "equality" tests are computational less expensive than >> an rdf entailment test. Technically it is the difference between Graph >> Isomorphism and SubGraph Isomorphism. GI is thought to be strictly between P >> and NP where SubGraph Iso is known to be NP. For these reason it may be >> desirable to either: >> + add rdfEquivalent and rdfsEqualivalent predicates >> or make sure we use cycles, and suggest that users of the test cases should >> search for such cycles if they have a GI algorithm available. > >i lean more towards the cycles... >but can live with equivalent I also prefer to stick with cycles for now. Even if we allow rdfEquivalent, we would still need to check for the cycles in any case (no way to mandate against a valid inference); and I don't think these graphs are going to get so big that the complexity is really going to hurt anyone. 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
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:12:02 UTC