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

Re: A triple is not unique.

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:51:21 -0500
Message-ID: <029a01c05333$a4470850$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote:

> I'd like to think I appreciate that! My concern (see reply to Jonathan) is
> that we don't want the status of the expression to depend on the content
> of utterly unrelated RDF files elsewhere on the Web which happen to also
> encode the same p/s/o content but (via the ID mechanism) assign them a
> different identifier. Imagine if your C program became illegal when
> someone else far away on the Web wrote C that attempted to do something
> that overlapped with your application. <shudder/>
> So that's the problem: if there's only one resource of type
> rdf:Statement with any given p/s/o, and RDF  syntax is useful enough to
> provide a way of ascribing identifiers to those things, whose chunk of
> syntax gets to be the lucky markup that names some given triple? How do we
> know that the rest are violating some constraint? Or should we be careful
> and say they're ALL in voilation?

    Another solution is to redefine the identity of a statement (p,s,o) to
include the reification quad. If we say that a statement is identified by
its reification quad, then we provide a mechanism to name statements outside
the (p,s,o) identity. This doesn't solve other "context" related problems
such as the need to represent static class properties but might have less
implications for current systems.

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 16:03:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC