W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Comments on RDF Concepts and Abstract Data Model

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:59:12 +0100
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDOEKLCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


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.  It is just as
if one wanted to defined equality in C by defining it over pieces of a
C program.  Similarly, it makes no sense to define equality of nodes
or triples.
]]

The new version
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/

continues to define equality over literals.

I believe this is helpful and do not intend to change it, but am open to
further discussion.

The uses that the WG has found for such notions are:

+ in the test cases
  Without a defined notion of equality between literals, we would not have a
defined notion of equality between graphs, which is necessary for the test
cases.

+ in the semantics. Without clarity about the nature of the syntactic
objects that the semantics are defined over, it seems difficult to know what
the semantics may be about. Your example of a C program is uncompelling
because it is usually taken as unproblematic what the underlying syntactic
objects are. All programming languages have to decide whether they are case
sensitive or not, which is the sort of level at which I perceive the literal
equality rules.

I fear that this message is at cross-purposes with your point. If so, please
clarify.

Thanks greatly for your interest, and for your timely comments on our work.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 10:00:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT