W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

defining RDF graph syntax

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:22:13 -0800
Message-ID: <3DBDE2C5.8000105@robustai.net>
To: "www-rdf-comments@w3.org" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>


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



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:01 UTC