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@[205.160.76.193]>
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 
>parsers.
>
>   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?

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 Wednesday, 24 October 2001 00:18:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:10 EDT