- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:59:57 +0200
- To: "'RDF Working Group'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, August 08, 2013 6:47 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> 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.
Pat, according to you, are these two datasets
{
{
_:x rdf:type ex:graphsIlike .
}
_:x {
ex:a ex:b ex:c}
}
}
########
{
{
_:x rdf:type ex:graphsIlike .
}
_:x {
ex:a ex:b ex:c}
}
}
isomorphic? (yes, they are exactly the "same").
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 21:00:31 UTC