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: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:40:00 -0500
Message-ID: <5A5CC5E87DE62148845CC96C8868900EB4AD3F@ataexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Thanks Jeremy. Just to make sure I understand your use of the term "reduction", you mean that G' can be derived from G?

James


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:27 AM
> To: Lynn, James (Software Services); Jeremy Carroll
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 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 Thursday, 18 March 2004 15:45:30 UTC

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