Re: proposal to close ISSUE-77 (Re: [ALL} agenda telecon Oct 19)

On 19 Oct 2011, at 22:06, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 19/10/11 20:53, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 19 Oct 2011, at 21:33, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us>  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 19/10/11 13:17, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:23 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't mind how what we do to rdf:Seq but if we say "use blank nodes
>>>>>> for Seq" (which then avoids the merge issues) it is a step forward (Ian
>>>>>> -- skolemized system generated URIs would count as well)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can live with that, but I'm not sure why we'd say
>>>>> dont-use-non-blank-nodes-for-Seq any stronger than dont-use-Seq.
>>>> 
>>>> It avoids merge problems as the bNodes should stop two rdf:_1's on the same resource.
>>> 
>>> Huh? How does that work? I mean, how do bnodes stop this happening?
>> 
>> I'm having a hard time seeing that, either.
>> 
>> The bNode could still carry properties e.g. Inverse Functional Properties, sufficient to get it mixed up with another node standing for the same thing.
> 
> "could" - yes, you can set things up so it's possible. But even then it does not happen by the simple act of reading two files into the same (programming language) graph (container).
> 
> I've not seen it happen - I've only seen Seq used as structured values, not as resources to be further described.
> 

Ok. Imagine we add a functional proprty to FOAF, birthdayWishlist. Anyone had at most one. It's a sequence of items. Enough to make trouble? But yes, would require some OWL processing...

Dan

>   Andy
> 
>> 
>> Dan