Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There were some proposals to do inference using algebraic methods quite some
time ago.  I don't think that they used equivalence reductions of this sort.

peter


On 03/20/2015 02:10 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 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: 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVDI5PAAoJECjN6+QThfjzFiUH/iXB9MX4Oswt6NjaHVglf4iq
9LeNTU45fCTNKMhBqOYeIcu+j85Dvbo8nOcTn78H5SzmrMGrDMcGeItKS33QERZk
CiZ3i5ZW6W8vdmUVSEpyNY8dfP70ohRQqJdxomDIRqdHi+c326cPjrdaj1e519ew
mbVVLePCRJrvs+2NBg22CxdnVLABip3Y0dXtT0jbnbE/cvraZLjeAdq8w+TR4KWl
TCH0DSsLNFX6sijjdOqNO60CnO3oe8vH68Va6hdThz6UbpG8uwY7LK8LdsubzB5n
2nD0wLLqIdojexSlSmMwf4Y92bRG++pHZhraDH7wk+8ED2B5ZXA4WMMvsRjBG7k=
=aZV9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 21:17:33 UTC