RE: A triple is not unique.

• From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
• Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:41:10 -0000
• To: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
• Cc: "'Seth Russell'" <seth@robustai.net>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>, "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Message-ID: <DD70D605CB99D411B13600508BDE6F2E081EE2@NTLONDON_01>

> >Giving a URI to a triple will not help.  You'd have to decide if
> >you the URI named the triple - i.e. the abstract thing - in which
> >case you have changed nothing, or a particular representation of
> >a triple, in which case you don'thave a means to refer to the
> >triple.
> 
> If you take the RFC 2396 view that a URI identifies a 
> "conceptual mapping", 
> of which an "entity" is a representation, then I think the 
> situation is 
> clearer (i.e. the URI names the abstract triple).  
> Unfortunately, it's not 
> entirely clear to me that RDF takes this approach (because of 
> its use of 
> fragment identifiers in RDF-resource identifiers).


Are we saying that any triple in my computer, is not, in fact an instance of
Triple, but the representation of an instance of Triple? That would be fine
(I think), albeit Platonic. 

What is the test that will tell us whether two representations of triples
are drawn from the same instance of Triple?

-Bill de hÓra 

Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 06:41:48 UTC