- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:24:09 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >Subject: Re: Comments on RDF Concepts and Abstract Data Model >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:14:27 -0600 > >> >From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> >> >Subject: Re: Comments on RDF Concepts and Abstract Data Model >> >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:59:12 +0100 >> > >> >> >> >> Hi Peter >> >> >> >> I am responding to some of your comment >> >> >> >> >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0053.html >> >> >> >> in particular: >> >> >> >> [[ >> >> Major comment: >> >> >> >> The RDF graph is syntax. As such it makes no sense to define a notion >> >> of equality over literals, which are pieces of syntax. >> >> Peter, why do you say it makes no sense? It makes perfect sense to >> me. If syntax is character strings, then equality is defined by >> string equality; if it is some other kind of structure, then equality >> is defined by other means. But it is still meaningful. > >Sure, it is possible to produce an equality relationship on syntax, and one >can do so without producing contradictions, but what has one achieved? Call it 'identity' if you like to avoid the potential confusions with equality in the language (though I havnt seen much evidence of that confusion in practice). BUt heres an example of the need to get this clear: what does it mean to be the same bnode? Its easy to slip past the need to be clear on this, and this has caused large amounts of confusion already. Purely syntactic confusion, but confusion all the same. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 15:24:15 UTC