- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:10:34 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Peter, You know the RDF/OWL literature better than me. Is there any material about taking quotient graphs? -- Arthur On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > -----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 Friday, 20 March 2015 21:11:03 UTC