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

Re: RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax: two comments

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
Message-ID: <OF10902837.7FD2F890-ONC1256DD7.004C9F2B-C1256DD7.00512C9D@diamond.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 
>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 
>[[, 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 
>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 
>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 
>a new blank node to give G'.
>(Omitting the observation about the number of blank nodes, which is 
>Please can you reply cc www-rdf-comments@w3.org as to whether these 
>are acceptable.

Hi Jeremy,

These changes are acceptable.

(Note that line 3 contains two times 'which are'.)

Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 09:49:39 UTC

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