- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:38:36 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: >> On 27 Jan 2006, at 22:47, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>> option b) >>>> """ >>>> Two basic graph patterns are graph-equivalent if they are the same >>>> up to bnode renaming. >>>> """ >>> I suggest we use the informal version, but include a link to the >>> normative formal version already published. Its a good idea >>> generally to link to other specs rather than repeat content: >>> >>> Two basic graph patterns are >>> <ahref="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-graph-equality> >>> graph-equivalent</a> if they are the same up to bnode renaming. >> I agree about choosing (b), but please note that the old definition >> does *not* work for BGPs because there are variables as well to map; >> so we can't refer to it directly (unless you say explicitly that it >> is the same by considering variables as well). > > Ah yes, of course. Damn. Let me think about that more. It seems inconsistent to informal describe BGP-equivalence yet, e.g., define E-Entailment regime. I agree with Pat's comment on referencing other specs but BGP-equivalence is one generalization of the RDF definition. For the moment, I have included the formal definition. There is text for the informal relationship to RDF graph equivalence. v1.626 Andy
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 12:39:22 UTC