Re: A triple is not unique.

Dan Brickley wrote:

> If this is a fair characterisation of the problem, it would be good to get
> implementors feedback on what an Errata for M+S might best look like. My
> current inclination as an implementor is to allow multiple instances of
> rdf:Statement with the same p/s/o, since this allows individual statements
> to be qualified without risk of confusion. What about the rest of you?

That is my inclination too.  But Jonas's example [1] troubles me.   I think we
need both types of reified statements - ones that are intended to be folded
together and ones that are not.    Kind of like classes and instances, names
and proper names, anonymous resources and URI named resources.  I think
storing 4 triples works best for the former and using IDs on property elements
works best for the latter.  Am I off base?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Nov/0238.html

Seth Russell