>The following claim from RDF Semantics, Section 0.3, is incorrect: > > In particular, any graph obtained by replacing all blank nodes by > new blank nodes not in the original graph is an instance of the > original and also, by inverting the mapping, has it as an > instance. By our convention, such isomorphic graphs are considered > to be identical. > >To see this consider the ``original'' graph > > a:b c:d _:a . > a:b c:e _:b . > >and the ``new'' graph > > a:b c:d _:c . > a:b c:e _:c . The wording is careless and unclear. The intent was that the blank nodes would be replaced one at a time or in a 1:1 fashion, ie as a re-naming. I will find a better way to express this. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spamReceived on Friday, 7 February 2003 12:24:04 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:49 EDT