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

RE: A triple is not unique.

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:28:37 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F2394E0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Dan,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 20 November 2000 17:21
> To: McBride, Brian
> Cc: 'Dan Brickley'; Jonas Liljegren; Seth Russell; RDF-IG
> Subject: RE: A triple is not unique.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, McBride, Brian wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Maybe I missed the appropriate post, but I'm unclear how we square the
> set-oriented definition of 'Statement' with the syntactic ability to
> assign various IDs (and hence URIs) to the XML occurances of RDF
> statements. 

Just because an expression is syntactically valid, does not mean it
is a valid expression of a language.  Consider C, many syntactically
valid "program" violate other contraints of the language and are
illegal.

Brian
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 14:29:01 GMT

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