W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

RE: A triple is not unique.

From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:35:41 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001120173253.00b30810@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Cc: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 11:41 AM 11/20/00 +0000, Bill dehOra wrote:

> > >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.

That's what _I_ was suggesting.  Can't answer for the rest ;-)

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

They contain representations of the same URIs for subject, predicate and object

(Or, if object is a literal, the same literal value)

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:01:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT