W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [Graphs] g-text equivalence

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:41:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8682AE.9070406@webr3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 19:02 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> Can't we simply *define* g-texts to be equivalent under such trivial variations? It is our notion, after all.
>> I'm not quite sure what you mean.  I think it's important the g-text be
>> a subclass of character or byte strings, so *equality* is string
>> equality.
> Well, that kills my suggestion right there. So let me push back on this point. Why do you think this is important? Why should a g-text not have its own g-style notion of equality? Why should it be a subclass of byte strings? 
>>  For equivalence, yes, it seems like there's a simple and
>> obvious meaning of equivalence, but I don't know how to formalize it,
> You did later in the message :-)
> I guess my overall question is, why do we need to distinguish identity from equivalence? Maybe this question is a residue from when I used to think like a mathematician, but I'd be interested in your answer.

g-text's are like (well they are) representations, and they may have 
other properties, for example and RDFa document, it contains multiple 
things, one of those things is a serialization/encoding/representation 
of the g-snap.

Thus I have to conclude that we can only have g-snap equivalence and not 
g-text equivalence.

(I think that follows?! always aware how easily I can be wrong, 
especially given the recipients of this mail lol)

Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 22:42:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:04 UTC