>At 11:18 PM 10/23/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > >>>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? > >I think so, but a fleeting worry about literals crossed my mind: > > ex:subj ex:prop "lit" . > ex:subj ex:prop "lit" . > >I can't see any actual problem here, but at some stage there seemed >to be this idea that different instances of a literal were distinct >things in the abstract syntax; e.g. so that things like: > ex:shoe shoe:size "10" . > ex:shoe shoe:label "10" . >could be interpreted appropriately. > >Just checking. Yes, good point. However I think that the only way that two tokens of a literal could possibly need to be distinguished would be if they were somewhere, somehow, included in two different triples, in any datatyping scheme. Otherwise you could co-data-type them without causing any contradictions with anything else. So this would be safe even in this case. 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/~phayesReceived on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 18:37:11 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:11 EDT