defining RDF graph syntax

Pat,

RE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0429.html

where you say:
[[But we are careful not to say that they ARE graphs
in any mathematical sense, because they aren't.]]

Exactly why are RDF graphs not graphs in the mathematical sense ?   
How do they diverge from the definition of a labeled pseudograph as
defined at

http://www.utm.edu/departments/math/graph/glossary.html#pseudograph

??

And then you say:

[[The basic point of this is that it does NOT distinguish between nodes
and their labels, and this is a real advantage, I suggest, in keeping
the exposition clear. It certainly avoids what is otherwise going to
be a minefield of getting the exact mathematical sense of 'graph'
correct, and since we don't need to go into this minefield, I suggest
that we keep out of it.]]

Where is the mine field? I don't see it.  If the mathematical
beauty of RDF as labeled directed graphs is to be swept away
here by a stoke of your pen, can you at least go on record,  
giving us a good reason why?  

Waving at mine fields is not giving reasons.

Seth Russell

Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 20:22:52 UTC