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

RE: a bnode URI scheme?!

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:27:29 +0100
To: "Lynn, James (Software Services)" <james.lynn@hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDKENJCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> >
> >
> > 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
>
>

Hi James,

if G' is a subset of G then G always entails G' and there is no issue. If
that's your point, I agree.

On the other hand, if G' is some arbitrary other graph then it might include
other facts that are not in G, even if G' entails G - in which case
replacing G by G' is unsound.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 10:27:49 UTC

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