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: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:47:59 -0400
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20011008084759.A16477@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 01:57:15PM -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >Sets are semantically harmless too and put a lighter burden on me as an
> >implementer :-) , so I'd rather do the following:
> >
> >- treat rdf storage systems as sets (maybe, unless they do something
> >groovy with provenance)
> >- warn consumers of TripleIterator streams that they may see the same
> >statement more than once
> >- and so on.
> >
> >In other words, the behaviour of an application over time as assertions
> >and retractions are made is a decision that the application-writer has
> >to make and advertise to his users.
> 
> Yes, that seems like the most sensible path to take. We should be 
> very clear that we officially don't give a damn.

To represent this with test cases, given:

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:eg="http://example.org/">

 <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org">
   <eg:property>some property value</eg:property>
   <eg:property>some property value</eg:property>
 </rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

then it seems like we'll need two resulting .nt files.  One with:

<http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> "some property value" .

and the other with:

<http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> "some property value" .
<http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> "some property value" .

Would some test cases like this reflect the WG's decsion on this?
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 08:48:02 EDT

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