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

RE: Comments on RDF Concepts

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:55:16 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010801ce7701$e028dc90$a07a95b0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:32 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Quick comment on one point:
> 
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> ...
> > Can we (re)move sections 1.7 Equivalence, Entailment and Inconsistency
and
> > 3.6 Graph Isomorphism, and 4.1 RDF Dataset Isomorphism (to Semantics)?
> 
> I would like to keep graph *isomorphism* and dataset *isomorphism* in
> Concepts. They are not semantic ideas, but part of the abstract syntax
> specification; and it is good to keep them clearly distinct from the
> semantic idea of (logical) equivalence.

I should have said why I made those comments. I think we should try to
simplify RDF Concepts as much as possible to show that RDF's data model is
indeed quite simple. Talking about "isomorphism" or "entailment regimes"
doesn't really help in that regard. I see your point but wouldn't it
actually be easier to describe that difference in Semantics?

Actually Semantics already describes graph isomorphism (but also says that
it is defined in Concepts):

   Two graphs are isomorphic when each maps into the other by a 1:1
   mapping on blank nodes. Isomorphic graphs are mutual instances with
   an invertible instance mapping. As blank nodes have no particular
   identity beyond their location in a graph, we will often treat
   isomorphic graphs as identical.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 08:55:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:30 UTC