Re: one question about

and this the same graph?
=x/+y/(()/()/=markus)
=x/+y/(()/()/=animesh)
=x/+y/(=markus/+friend/=animesh)

With my current understanding of the graph model, I'd have to say no, they are not the same.

Generally I think the "test" whether two graphs are equals is to draw them.

Markus

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond@connect.me> wrote:

Markus, my sense is that this question is entirely about the question of equivalence of XDI graphs with and without explicit context statements.

My gut reaction is that the TC should clearly state the rules for XDI graph equivalence on way or the other, i.e., by declaring non-essential context statements either MUST be included or MUST NOT be included in graph comparison, and that should solve the issue.

Then the serialization formats should key off those same rules.

Which way are you leaning, i.e., do you think non-essential context statements MUST or MUST NOT be considered significant?

=Drummond

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org> wrote:

Drummond and others,

If I put the following into the XDI Converter and try to convert to JSON:

@!9999!8888$msg$(!1234)$do/$add/(()/()/=markus)
@!9999!8888$msg$(!1234)$do/$add/(=markus/+friend/=animesh)

Should the output be this?

{"@!9999!8888$msg$(!1234)$do/$add": [{
"()/()": ["=markus"],
"=markus/+friend": ["=animesh"]
}]}

or should it be this?

{"@!9999!8888$msg$(!1234)$do/$add": [{
"=markus/+friend": ["=animesh"]
}]}

Or are both valid conversions? Or does it depend on the "contexts" parameter?

If both outputs are valid, that would imply that both represent the same graph, which however does not seem very intuitive in the XDI DISPLAY format.

Prashant, Pankaj and I ran into this while updating the XDI/JSON implementation.

This issue reminds me of a new idea involving () arcs and inner graphs that you mentioned to me, perhaps it's time to explore this further...?

Markus

xdi message