- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:23:59 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 17, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> [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. for which, thanks. > > 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." Looks good to me. > <<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 superceeded /superceded 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 > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 23:24:04 UTC