Re: missing bit of RDF for XML people

On 4 Feb 2005, at 16:01, Ian Davis wrote:
> On 04/02/2005 13:50, Henry Story wrote:
>> Ok. But it is very clearly not what the original author
>> of the xml intended. Since
>>  - if the blank_predicates for both statements are the same then
>>  you would be saying that there is a country that is related in
>>  the same way to the string "Canada" and "France".
>
> I would assume that two separate country elements would produce two 
> separate blank nodes of type country:
>
> (blank_node1) - (blank_predicate1) --> "Canada"
> (blank_node1) - type --> country
> (blank_node2) - (blank_predicate1) --> "France"
> (blank_node2) - type --> country

Ok. I had not read that into the original mail. But if this was the 
intention then indeed it
looks a lot more promising.


I had tried to generalise that to the fullest in a post to this mailing 
list [1],
but had got stuck. For want of time I have not been able to find a  way 
out of the
problems there described. I don't think it is impossible though, just I 
have to work
on other things in the mean time.

Henry Story

[1] see the section below the BROKEN THOUGHT warning:
     
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2005Jan/0130.html