W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax: two comments

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:12:33 +0100
To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>

Hi Herman,

treating both comments as editorial ...

in section 3.2

I am uninclined to make too much of this comment, since this section of the
document is intended as less formal introductory text, preceding the more
formal treatment in section 6.

Would the following minor wording change avoid the worst of the problem you

[[, and has no globally distinguishing identity.]]

Suggested replacement:
[[, but has no intrinsic name.]]

the next para talks about blank node identifiers making it clear that such
identifiers are not intrinsic to the node.

On 6.3 Graph Equivalence

I am happy to accept your text as an editorial improvement.

The whole section will read
Two RDF graphs G and G' are equivalent if there is
a bijection M between the sets of nodes of the two
graphs, such that:
1. M maps blank nodes to blank nodes
2. M(lit)=lit for all RDF literals lit which are nodes of G
3. M(uri)=uri for all RDF URI references uri which are which are nodes of G
4. The triple (s,p,o) is in G if and only if the triple (M(s),p,M(o))
   is in G'.
With this definition, M shows how each blank node in G can be replaced with
a new blank node to give G'.

(Omitting the observation about the number of blank nodes, which is obvious)

Please can you reply cc www-rdf-comments@w3.org as to whether these changes
are acceptable.


Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 08:13:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:04 UTC