W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Merging: Resource vs. Thing [was: Re: n3/n-triples syntax question]

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:22:36 -0800
Message-ID: <003701c17c59$c650c440$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: "RDFIG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>

> [...]
> > In RDF, suppose you could know that two nodes in two
> > graphs represented one and the same resource.  Would it
> > not be allowable, even desirable, to merge them?  If not,
> > why not?
> This is actually a rather intreguing question. If you decided that you
> *wanted* to merge the nodes, then you could of course do so, but you
> would have to come up with a strategy for getting rid of the URI-views
> that you do not want. For example, say you had:-
>    <#p> = <#q> .
> and then references to p and q throughout your store. Which URI-ref
> would you use? Some processors should have enough power to let you
> filter out the ones that you don't want, perhaps based upon string
> length, and then alphabetical order. Indeed, there is a filter for CWM
> that can do just that [1].

If a system uses an internal identifier for nodes, then when some semantic
process determines that two nodes represent the same resource, merging them
is not a problem.  And keeping things  straight such that the system can
communicate with extermal systems that uses a  particular URI to identify
that same node is not a problem eitther.   In expressing this to you I'll
use blank nodes implying that I have an internal identity for the node, but
that you will never know it.


I did an animated gif of a semantic process interperting two nodes as one.
You might find this somewhat related.


Seth Russell
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 19:24:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:38 UTC