W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2013

RE: Comment on rdf concepts (RDF-ISSUE-140)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:02:16 +0200
To: "'W3C RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a601ce93a9$047cb1c0$0d761540$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, August 05, 2013 6:29 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I have a question/comment on this:
> [[
> 4.1 RDF Dataset Comparison
> Two RDF datasets (the RDF dataset D1 with default graph DG1 and named
> graph NG1 and the RDF dataset D2 with default graph DG2 and named graph
> NG2) are dataset-isomorphic if and only if:
> 	. DG1 and DG2 are graph-isomorphic;
> 	. For each (n1,g1) in NG1, there exists (n2,g2) in NG2 such that
> n1=n2 and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic;
> 	. For each (n2,g2) in NG2, there exists (n1,g1) in NG1 such that
> n1=n2 and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic.
> ]]
> A graph name can now be a blank node. Wouldn't it be appropriate to use
> the 'M' mapping of section 3.6 for the graph names, too? Or are we
> deliberately silent on this?

Hmm... I'm not sure, it would probably make sense and be consistent with the
rest. On the other hand, since the graph names are just labels it may not
make much sense because you could argue that two blank node "labels" will
never match as they are dataset-local.

Anyway, I've opened ISSUE-140 to keep track of this:


Markus Lanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 20:02:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:31 UTC