- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:58:44 -0600
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk
- Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> >[NEW] ACTION: DanC to review test README re "logically equivalent" >vs graph equivalent [recorded in >http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action05] I took over this action from Dan. Change suggested to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/README.html : " A test passes if the graph from the action is logically equivalent to the graph named in the result. "Logical equivalence " can be tested by eliminating redundant bNodes in both graphs and testing if the graphs are isomorphic: same shape, same labels." // " A test passes if the graph from the action is <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-graph-equality">equivalent</a>[RDF-CONCEPTS] to the graph named in the result. Equivalence can be tested by checking that the graphs are isomorphic and have identical IRI and literal nodes." <<I deleted 'same labels' as it might imply a need for the same bnodeIDs to be used.>> Other typos I noticed: Open parenthesis (earlier in above paragraph) with no matching close. superceeded /superceded RDf/RDF specificed/specified achives/achieves -- Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 22:58:53 UTC