- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:47:35 -0600
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
<snip> >> >>I don't quite understand the sentence "Non-lean graphs have internal >>redundancy and express the same content as their lean subgraphs." From the >>modelling point of view, this seems rather important. Perhaps the concept >>"redundancy" should be defined in this context? > >Well, it was intended only as a helpful remark: the formal >definition stands by itself. The point of the word 'redundancy' is >that the content of one part of the graph can be inferred from other >parts. For example if the graph contains > >ex:pat rdf:type ex:human . >_:x rdf:type ex:human . > >then it is redundant in this sense: the second triple adds no new >content to the first triple, and can be inferred from it. This graph >says in effect, Pat is human, and a human exists. So this graph is >equivalent in content to the first triple alone, and could be >removed without changing the meaning of the graph. That is, the second triple could be removed without, etc... <snip> Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 12:47:38 UTC