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

RE: a bnode URI scheme?!

From: Lynn, James (Software Services) <james.lynn@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:09:45 -0500
Message-ID: <5A5CC5E87DE62148845CC96C8868900E13513E@ataexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:26 AM
> To: Andrew Newman
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: a bnode URI scheme?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Newman wrote:
> 
> > Isn't that nearly always going to be wrong?  I mean just because an 
> > bnode has the same properties (say first name and last name 
> or even just 
> > first name) doesn't mean they are the same thing.
> 
> Second sentence is true but irrelevant to the first.
> A reduction from G to G' is sound and complete iff G entails 
> G' and G' 
> entails G by the RDF Semantics. 


Jeremy - I don't follow why G must G'. Isn't it sufficient for G' to entail G? Am I missing something?

Thanks,
James



This definition, which in my 
> view is a 
> useful take on the RDF Recs, may be worth implementing in 
> software (not 
> that I have done so). Any semantic processing of G that does 
> not work on G' 
> is potentially non-interoperable and requires thought. In particular 
> counting the number of bnodes linked by an eg:foo edge to 
> eg:bar should not 
> make any material difference (i.e. semantically relevant) to 
> the actions of 
> an RDF processor.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 13:10:20 UTC

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