RE: comments / review of Concepts

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:12 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> What do you think about putting some of the material currently in
> Semantics section  4.1 into Concepts section 6? I have no axe to grind
> on this, but maybe we should at least consider the idea. It is not
> directly concerned with semantics so much as the machinery of combining
> graphs into larger ones, which seems like fairly basic stuff that all
> RDF users should know about.

Nice pictures! They are very helpful

IMO Concepts should be as simple (and short) as possible. So actually I
would like to see some stuff to be moved from Concepts to Semantics :-) For
example the sections about isomorphism or section 1.7 Equivalence,
Entailment and Inconsistency. All of them are self-contained and more or
less duplicate what's already in Semantics.

Just my two cents...


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 21:21:28 UTC