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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 07:55:55 -0700
Cc: "'RDF Working Group'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <10FA930B-DB57-458A-8450-5A95CE063213@ihmc.us>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>

On Aug 9, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Markus Lanthaler 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)

That is not my understanding. I guess this has not been formally decided, but your interpretation is so bizarre that I never even considered it before. For example, Sandro's use case of the default graph as metadata would not be possible with this interpretation. 

Pat

> from
> which I conclude that the same bnode id mappings can be mapped differently.
> 
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Saturday, 10 August 2013 14:56:27 UTC

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