W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Re: a bnode URI scheme?!

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto@gmuer.ch>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:33:13 +0100
Message-ID: <405175C9.4040605@gmuer.ch>
To: Adam Souzis <adam-l@souzis.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Adam Souzis wrote:

| Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
|> I don't think that it is true that the identity of an anonymous resource
|> is given by the fact that only identical properties are present in the
|> model.
|
| What you're saying here is both true and false.  Its true in the sense
| that a bNode, as an existential variable, doesn't identify anything
| (that's outside of the scope of RDF semantics)  but wrong in the sense
| that two RDF graphs are equivalent even if they have bnodes with
| different names but the same extension.
I agree that the names of the bnodes makes no difference but I'm still
not convinced about the identity of bnodes with the same extension.
(I've just tryed loading twice the same bnode-containing RDF/XML in a
model with jena, and jena is either buggy or it agrees with me ;-)

cheers,
reto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAUXWWD1pReGFYfq4RAtZ9AJ9oFJSWhDmTwQLudjoj2x5xD+wyUACgwRki
3qboXIxGC0OiPjniDsHRiNQ=
=8vMC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 03:33:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC