- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:46:51 -0700
- To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "RDF Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:54 PM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > RDF-ISSUE-140 (dataset-comparison): RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman) [RDF Concepts] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/140 > > Raised by: Ivan Herman > On product: RDF Concepts > > 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? We need to do *something*, as the above definition is now wrong. For example, it says that these are isomorphic: { {_:x rdf:type ex:graphsIlike .} _:x {ex:a ex:b ex:c} } { {_:y rdf:type ex:graphsIlike .} _:x {ex:a ex:b ex:c} } which is incorrect. Yes, the best way to fix this would be to describe it in terms of the M mapping, IMO. Here is a stab: Two RDF datasets D1 (with default graph DG1 and named graph set NG1) and D2 (with default graph DG2 and named graph set NG2) are dataset-isomorphic if and only if there is a bijection M between the nodes, triples and graphs in D1 and those in D2 such that: 1. M maps blank nodes to blank nodes 2. M is the identity map on literals and URIs 3. For every triple <s p o>, M(<s, p, o>)=<M(s), M(p), M(o)> 4. For every graph G= {t1, ...1n}, M(G)={M(t1), ..., M(Tn)} 5. DG2 = M(DG1) 6. <n, G> is in NG1 if and only if <M(n), M(G)> is in NG2. I think this is correct and states the conditions about as neatly as possible. Pat > > Ivan > > [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0008.html] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 04:47:19 UTC