W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Issues danc-01 Re: 2 formalities in RDF concepts

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:10:46 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <1044025845.2145.306.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 12:07, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 11:22, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > before the WG discusses this issue I wanted to understand your concern.
> > 
> > I believe that you think the concept described in
> > 
> > 6.3 Graph Equality
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-graph-equality
> > 
> > is one that is relevant to RDF and should be described in RDF Concepts, but 
> > that you take issue with it being labelled "Equality". Earlier drafts called 
> > this concept "Isomorphism"
> 
> Well, that's a different way to resolve this matter, but
> the semantics doc doesn't use that notion of graph;
> it uses the notion of graph where the n-triples
> documents below definitely correspond to the
> identically same graph, even if the sets
> of triples don't share a blank node.
> So going that way would involve a change to
> the semantics doc that might be quite significant.

After discussion with JanG, I think perhaps the change
to the semantics doc might not be so significant.

Just strike this bit:

[[
Graphs with isomorphic pictures in this sense are considered to be
identical; this means that we do not distinguish sets of triples which
differ only in the identity of their blank nodes. This slight abuse of
terminology allows us to simplify the presentation by ignoring questions
of re-naming of bound variables.
]]

since, in fact, in the definition of merge, we do in fact treat
re-naming of bound variables.

Also, add graph to the list of terms imported from concepts.
[[
We use the following terminology defined there: uriref, literal, plain
literal, typed literal, blank node and triple.
]]

I do think the term "Graph Equality" is misleading; I'd prefer
Graph Equivalence for the RDF Concepts heading.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 10:11:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT