Re: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action05

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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 superceeded /superceded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
>>



Changes made (text swapped, typos changed) for action:

ACTION AndyS: implement test README change from 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0145.html

from telecon 24/Jan/06

	Andy

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 18:07:13 UTC