- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:59:55 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dan Connolly wrote: > JJC wrote: > > see: > > 3.6 Graph Equality > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20020829/#xtocid103648 > > (which uses both terms) > > > > If I have two N-triple files of one line each > > > > <eg:a> <eg:b> _:x . > > > > and > > > > <eg:a> <eg:b> _:y . > > > > Do you think they are equal or unequal? > > Those two files are clearly distinguishable, hence > they are not equal. > > > Personally, I would say they are equal as RDF graphs, and unequal as text > > documents. > > "as RDF graphs"... I'm not sure what you mean by that, formally. > I don't think you mean that N-triples file are RDF graphs. > I think you mean that there's a straightforward correspondence > from N-triples files to RDF graphs, and that the > two distinct N-triples files above correspond to the > same RDF graph. Jeremy's talking about *syntactic* equality (ie, "X equals Y" means "every expression involving X can be rewritten with Y substituted for it and the expression's value is preserved"), not identity (X and Y can be equal but not identical; if X and Y are identical then they're equal). This terminology is used (in my experience) by some mathematicians but not all; depends on the field and personal choice. In the sense it's used it's ok (I think) so it comes down to choosing a terminology and sticking to it. If this is going to cause wide-scale confusion it might be better to revert to couching this in terms of "isomorphism" which is a less overloaded term. jan
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 17:02:53 UTC