W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2002

Re: nodes and node labels [was New document: revised version for WG review]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:12:12 +0100
Message-ID: <3D46667C.80101@hpl.hp.com>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org



Frank Manola wrote:

> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> I do not believe that this has any substantive content, but is merely
>> aesthetic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aesthetic possibly, but it also has implications on apparent 
> consistency.  



Agreed. My message wasn't intended to indicate that this would be an 
acceptable inconsistency at last call. Merely that at this stage it 
shows stylistic choices in presentation that the WG needs to agree on.

It is clear that the primer editors need to be in on that agreement.

What other docs talk about the nodes in the graphs and their labels?
Probably all of them?
Which use nodes and node labels, which treat the label as the node?



> 
> A couple of minor questions about this:
> 
> a.  if, in the current model theory, some nodes *are* URIrefs, rather 
> than being *labeled with* URIrefs, why shouldn't arcs *be* URIrefs, 
> rather than being *labeled with* URI refs?


Easy one: the nodes can be the label because there is at most one node 
with any given label. That is not true of arcs. e.g. there are many arcs 
labelled rdf:type. If we identify the arc with the uriref rdf:type then 
it has more than two ends.


> Well, I think debate is needed, not so much about which explanation is 
> better, but about whether we ought to use one, and not two (or, heaven 
> help us, more than two!).  And I think *this* debate ought to happen 
> ASAP.  It seems to me that if using the basic concepts from the model 
> theory causes problems for non-mathematicians, we need to explain things 
> better, not introduce apparent inconsistencies about whether nodes *are* 
> URIs or are labeled by them (and I suspect that the non-mathematicians 
> will be the first to notice, and have a problem with such inconsistencies).
> 


We clearly should have one, the question is which one?

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 06:12:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:54 EDT