- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:15:15 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Jeremy: >> >+ equivalence of RDF graphs is NP complete >Pat: >> Presume you mean semantic equivalence, ie A equivalent B means: A >> entails B and B entails A (?) > >Yes. > > >Jeremy: >> >So the "graphs are sets?!" thread was triggered by my observation that an >> >ntriple file with two identical triples >> > > > >A: >> > >> ><uri> <pred> <uri2> . >> ><uri> <pred> <uri2> . >> > >> >was equivalent to one with only one: >> > >> >B: >> > >> ><uri> <pred> <uri2> . > >Pat: >> They are certainly equivalent in the sense that each entails the >> other. I thought what we were discussing was whether we even want to >> allow the first one as a well-formed graph. >> > >It *is* a well-formed N-Triples file. > Yes, true. What I meant was, whether we want to allow a graph with two identical arcs between the same two nodes as a well-formed graph, or if on the other hand we want to say that those two documents describe the same graph. Right now there is nothing to rule out such a duplicate-arc graph, according to our definitions. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 12:15:16 UTC