Re: ACTION 2003-03-14#6: comments on semantics doc

>...
>
>Section 0.3 [Nit]
>
>Defines "isomorphic" graphs, but elsewhere [1] we agreed to talk of
>"equivalent" graphs.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0602.html 
>...

Will check tomorrow.
--------

Tomorrow: Yes, as I thought, this definition isnt used anywhere else 
so I have simply removed it. The passage now reads:

"Two such graphs which differ only in the identity of their blank 
nodes will often be treated as indistinguishable. This slight abuse 
of terminology ...."

and 2 paragraphs later,

" .... a set obtained by replacing blank nodes in some members of S 
by distinct blank nodes to obtain another set S' of graphs which are 
indistinguishable from S in the above sense."

So, done.

Im working on the incorporation of the rest of the RDF property 
vocabulary into IP right now. There are several other things that 
need to be included as well, eg some rdf:type triples., that just 
kind of got left out. I think the reorganization of this section will 
actually be an improvement in exposition as well as it will help to 
avoid the impression that the reification and container vocabularies 
have no semantics at all.

Pat