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

Re: Closing rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (was: RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2001-10-12)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:18:26 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101055b7fbf0eeb2a8@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>Brian/Pat - were does the WG stand on duplicate triples?
>Actually, I'm not sure :(
>Let me try a strawman position:
>I agree with Pat that this seems to be more of an implementation 
>issue which is hard to discuss without a processing model.  However, 
>using terms like parser, loosely:
>   o it doesn't seem reasonable to require parsers to eliminate 
>duplicates - that  would prohibit the development of streaming 
>   o we need say nothing this in terms of representing an RDF graph - 
>it's up to the implementor whether they filter duplicates or not. 
>that way we don't break existing implementations of either family 
>for no good reason.
>   o Pat seems to reckon the model theory is simpler with a set.

Its only a slight matter. Sets are more traditional and its slightly 
easier to state some of the lemmas. No big deal either way. What I 
would like however is for us to decide it one way or the other, 
because I have to re-do the math every time we change it.

>Can we extend the notion of a tidy graph so that it removes 
>duplicate statements.  Any untidy graph has an equivalent tidy 
>graph, and the model theory is defined in terms of that.

Yes, we can do that. Everyone go on that?


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 00:18:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:52 UTC