- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 23:36:41 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 07/08/13 21:02, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > 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. This is defining "dataset-isomorphic" (i.e. it's a data structure matter, not "equality") so the graph label should be included in the isomorphism-ness. Andy PS Testing needs this. > Anyway, I've opened ISSUE-140 to keep track of this: > https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/140 > > > Cheers, > Markus > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 22:37:10 UTC