W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2003

RE: AW: Literals representing people?

From: LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1) <james.lynn@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:17:45 -0400
Message-ID: <079FD72E42C9D311B854009027650E6F1943FE74@xatl02.atl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Very clear. Thanks,

James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:35 AM
> To: ext LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1); ext Thomas B. Passin;
> www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AW: Literals representing people?
> 
> 
> On 2003-10-01 18:41, "ext LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1)" <james.lynn@hp.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > So just to make sure I'm not missing anything, 1 has a node 
> named _:x which
> > is a blank node in 3
> 
> Both 1 and 3 have the blank node, and are identical expressions
> of the same graph. In 1, a local identifier is used as NTriples
> doesn't provide for the contracted form expressed in 3. But they
> represent the same identical RDF graph.
> 
> > and is totally omitted in 2.
> 
> Right. 2 expresses a different graph than 1/3.
> 
> > But for these
> > differences, they would all be equivalent.
> > 
> > 1    <#me> ex:myFriend _:x .
> > _:x ex:emailAddress <mailto:somebody@example.com> .
> > 
> > 
> > 2    <#me> ex:someFriendsEmail <mailto:somebody@example.com> .
> > 
> > 
> > 3    <#me> ex:myFriend [ ex:emailAddress  
<mailto:somebody@example.com> ]
> 
 
They wouldn't be explicitly equivalent. But given a pair of inference
rules relating the two forms, one could entail either of the two graphs
from the other. I.e.

IF
   ?s ex:myFriend ?o .
   ?o ex:emailAddress ?a .
THEN
   ?s ex:someFriendsEmail ?a .

IF
   ?s ex:someFriendsEmail ?a .
THEN
   ?s ex:myFriend ?o .
   ?o ex:emailAddress ?a .

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 08:17:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT