- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 21:35:10 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On May 23, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 05/23/2012 07:17 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> in a recent update to the test suite Dave changed the behavior of >> expansion to remove duplicates in sets. Is this what we wanna do? > > Yes. It doesn't make sense for a set to contain a duplicate of the same > member (per the mathematical definition of a set): > > "A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct > objects of our perception [Anschauung] and of our thought – which are > called elements of the set." > > -- Georg Cantor, Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre > > The key phrase there being "distinct objects". > >> So, e.g., "prop": [ 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3 ] will now get expanded to >> "prop": [ 1, 2, 3 ] (of course as @value objects). Is this what we >> wanna do? Or is this something we should do as part of framing resp. >> subject map generation? > > I think all of the algorithms should clean sets... we could also take > the position that no cleaning should be done for performance reasons. > That's really the strongest counter-point I can see now - performance... > because multi-hundred-thousand-member sets are not going to be > performant for this algorithm. Furthermore, RDF Graphs do not support duplicate triples, which is another reading of the "distinct objects" bit. So, I agree, that @set arrays must have duplicates removed. Note the case for @list, though. Gregg > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched > http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/ >
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 01:36:11 UTC