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

Re: graphs are sets?! (was: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (was: Issues list update/status?))

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:55:24 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101018b7e3b22a7bcc@[205.160.76.189]>
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Jan Grant wrote:
>>  On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>>
>>  > On Thursday, October 4, 2001, at 09:34  AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>  >
>>  > > I would prefer test1.nt to only have one line if they are
>>  > > identical. The
>>  > > graph is a set.
>>  > > A comment explaining the deletion would then be helpful.
>>  >
>>  > Whoa, whoa, whoa, I don't think we ever agreed to this. It was
>>  > my understanding the output was a bag (there wasn't harm in
>>  > doing so), but could be interpreted as a set.
>>  >
>>  > When was this changed?
>
>I also do not recall an explicit decision on this.
>
>The issue for this is:
>
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements
>
>and it is under the category Issues Awaiting Consideration.
>
>>  The MT would give the same interpretation for equivalent arcs in a
>>  multigraph, wouldn't it?
>
>Pat - does the MT address [1]?

No, it has no opinion. It would give the same meaning to a graph with 
a repeated triple as it would to the one with the repetition removed. 
I would vote for bags on the grounds that they are harmless and put 
less of a burden on implementors, but that's me talking, not the MT.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 14:55:25 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:57 EDT