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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-140 (dataset-comparison): RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman) [RDF Concepts]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:16:30 +0200
Cc: "'RDF Working Group'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <07A353F1-96AE-4722-9AD6-64AFFA4621D1@w3.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>

On Aug 9, 2013, at 11:43 , Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Friday, August 09, 2013 11:24 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> We had a long discussion some times ago and we concluded that graphs in
>> a dataset share bnodes. As a consequence, I believe Gavin's statement
>> seems to be the proper conclusion...
> 
> Yes, the graphs share bnodes but I'm not sure how that relates to the graph
> names. So you could as well argue that there are two sets of blank node
> identifiers and that in the examples below the mappings are
> 
> Example 1: _:y -> _:x (nodes) | _:y -> _:x (graphs)
> Example 2: _:y -> _:y (nodes) | _:y -> _:x (graphs)
> 
> Or do I miss something? As far as I understand it, there's no relationship
> between a blank node identifier used as graph name and a blank node
> identifier used as node (you could say they are in different scopes) from
> which I conclude that the same bnode id mappings can be mapped differently.
> 
> 

Yes, we could do that. But that seems to be confusing, at least to me. Is there a use case for the separation of the different scopes? It looks way more obvious to me to consider a bnode as a label and a bnode in one of the graphs as being identical...

Ivan


>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 09:24 , "Markus Lanthaler"
>> <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Friday, August 09, 2013 12:20 AM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>>>> For clarity
>>>> 
>>>> {
>>>> {
>>>>   _:y rdf:type ex:graphsIlike .
>>>> }
>>>> _:y {
>>>>   ex:a ex:b ex:c}
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> ########
>>>> 
>>>> {
>>>> {
>>>>   _:x rdf:type ex:graphsIlike .
>>>> }
>>>> _:x {
>>>>   ex:a ex:b ex:c}
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> MUST be isomorphic if we expect to have test cases for parsing
>>>> datasets.
>>> 
>>> Gavin, could you please explain why!? And also why the first dataset
>> isn't isomorphic to
>>> 
>>> {
>>> {
>>>   _:y rdf:type ex:graphsIlike .
>>> }
>>> _:x {
>>>   ex:a ex:b ex:c}
>>> }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Markus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Markus Lanthaler
>>> @markuslanthaler
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 9 August 2013 14:16:53 UTC

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