- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:58:52 -0700
- To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Precisely, we have to go beyond the graph. peter On 03/19/2015 03:18 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> This appears to be exactly backward. >> >> To handle entailments we have to go beyond the graph. >> >> peter > > Peter, > > Perhaps the following expresses this issue better... > > Given a graph G, entailment generally results in a larger graph H. Simply > counting triples in H may not give the desired results. Overcounting may > occur due to owl:sameAs and equivalent lexical forms of literals. To get > the desired result, we need to unify equivalent nodes. Let E denote this > equivalence relation on the nodes of H. Then counting should be done on > the quotient graph Q = H/E. > > -- Arthur > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVC2K8AAoJECjN6+QThfjz8jUH/36nG3wZeQPUrZOP4bUmGRK8 3+jxG5R6KhP5eEdADkbFl6jyB5IHByfQxEnYp21HzS3UK6dgmwtmwx5W68T5MeMo VJpqDFN/Sd8HsPz67EBmhEeWR4qwC6LUQbSBdr2LIgwpORpd6GI1xTb8c/BGNO5i AbJo/SN37dBYHFMbfg2aU6seW4jUJ9fk3IKxqHca5AbnCx1DiARLZZ/QNYfT0kM+ D0WJ9qp6EW5Kd5VzpMZLAhHVYRVl3Mpvom+VS83OW3GCqBSvOC6utyfS8uR924wS XtpzNCR8z8IYJC3bdRN+1HaWSlMAvo44e2adFSZbn/KmibuiNrohlT8IClMWOTk= =DZUG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 23:59:24 UTC