W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: datatypes and MT (#rdfms-graph)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:11:09 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011115160203.04105ec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:03 AM 11/15/01 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>No? Why not? How is it that you conclude that bnodes
>in different graphs are different? I don't see it stated
>in the model theory.

It appears it's not stated directly, and probably should be since that was 
(to me) clearly the intent of our discussions.  Also, the final sentence of 
this text from section 2.0 pretty clearly signals that intent:

[[[
This effectively treats all unlabeled nodes as existentially
quantified in the RDF graph in which they occur. Notice that since
two nodes cannot have the same label, there is no need to specify
the 'scope' of the quantifier within a graph. (However, it
is local to the graph.) If we were to apply the semantics
directly to N-Triples syntax, we would need to indicate the
quantifier scope, since in this lexicalization syntax the same bNode 
identifier may occur several times. The above rule amounts to
the N-triple convention that would place the quantifiers just
outside, i.e. at the outer edge of, the N-triple document
corresponding to the graph.
]]]

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
       __
      /\ \
     /  \ \
    / /\ \ \
   / / /\ \ \
  / / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 11:26:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:41 EDT