Re: defn of Named Graph

On 18 September 2013 19:33, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote:

>
>  Something of an aside …
>
> On Sep 18, 2013, at 1:29 AM, Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com> wrote:
>
> The suggestion that a pair of mathematical entities with exactly the same
> extension are not equal doesn't help - it reads like an attempt to redefine
> mathematics.
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> I think you misunderstand mathematics ...
>
> I attach two pictures.
>
> The first is my copy, of Jones' copy of a diagram in a book in the vatican
> library which is a tenth century, maybe fifth generation, copy of a diagram
> drawn by Pappus of Alexandria in the 4th century, which may in turn have
> been a (n-th generational) copy of a diagram drawn by Euclid a few hundred
> years earlier.
> The copy in the vatican library, has, according to Jones, got a mistake in
> it: which he corrected, assuming it to be a copyist's error and not an
> error of Pappus or Euclid.
>
> All these copies will have minor variations .. such as angles and
> distances and sizes being slightly different [...]
>

Thanks - you confirm a hunch I had earlier in this thread. I started a mail
but couldn't find a way to make it clear: these distinctions we're drawing
around graphs echo very similar concerns people have for bibliographic
modeling of intellectual works, their literary expressions, manifestations
and tangible representation as items - to use the FRBR terminology. This is
not to suggest for a moment that FRBR is the best conceptualization of
graph change, state, and versioning; only that perhaps it might help to see
this as not a distinctively RDF-oriented problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records


Dan