RE: A triple is not unique.

> I am however in the business of trying to make sure all that 
> stuff (eg.
> possible rechartering of model/syntax work) reflects the concerns and
> experience of RDF implementors. Specifically, I'd like to better
> understand how the design issues here relate to existing RDF
> implementations and vocabularies. If/when we jump one way or 
> the other on
> this issue, current code and systems may break if they've 
> made a different
> interpretation of the spec. Right now I'm not sure if most 
> implementors
> have for eg tried to remain neutral, with code that could operate in
> either style. I suspect most folk would value resolution of this issue
> pretty highly, and would live with the consequences. What I 
> don't know yet
> is how big a disruption this issue's resolution might be.


I can see that the disruption caused to current implementations
would be a factor if m&s was ambiguous.  But if the answer lies
in m&s, I humbly suggest the spec takes precedence.  That's what
specs are for.

Brian