From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:22:13 -0800

Message-ID: <3DBDE2C5.8000105@robustai.net>

To: "www-rdf-comments@w3.org" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:22:13 -0800

Message-ID: <3DBDE2C5.8000105@robustai.net>

To: "www-rdf-comments@w3.org" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Pat, RE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0429.html where you say: [[But we are careful not to say that they ARE graphs in any mathematical sense, because they aren't.]] Exactly why are RDF graphs not graphs in the mathematical sense ? How do they diverge from the definition of a labeled pseudograph as defined at http://www.utm.edu/departments/math/graph/glossary.html#pseudograph ?? And then you say: [[The basic point of this is that it does NOT distinguish between nodes and their labels, and this is a real advantage, I suggest, in keeping the exposition clear. It certainly avoids what is otherwise going to be a minefield of getting the exact mathematical sense of 'graph' correct, and since we don't need to go into this minefield, I suggest that we keep out of it.]] Where is the mine field? I don't see it. If the mathematical beauty of RDF as labeled directed graphs is to be swept away here by a stoke of your pen, can you at least go on record, giving us a good reason why? Waving at mine fields is not giving reasons. Seth RussellReceived on Monday, 28 October 2002 20:22:52 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC
*