- From: <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:45:53 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> >Hi Herman, > >treating both comments as editorial ... > >"globally" >in section 3.2 >http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20031010/#section-URI-Vocabulary > >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 >highlight: > >Old: >[[, 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 >http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20031010/#section-graph-equality > >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. > >thanks > >Jeremy > > > Hi Jeremy, These changes are acceptable. (Note that line 3 contains two times 'which are'.) Herman
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 09:49:39 UTC