- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:06:35 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri2011@danbri.org>
- CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 19/10/11 20:53, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > > On 19 Oct 2011, at 21:33, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 19/10/11 13:17, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:23 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> I don't mind how what we do to rdf:Seq but if we say "use blank nodes >>>>> for Seq" (which then avoids the merge issues) it is a step forward (Ian >>>>> -- skolemized system generated URIs would count as well) >>>> >>>> I can live with that, but I'm not sure why we'd say >>>> dont-use-non-blank-nodes-for-Seq any stronger than dont-use-Seq. >>> >>> It avoids merge problems as the bNodes should stop two rdf:_1's on the same resource. >> >> Huh? How does that work? I mean, how do bnodes stop this happening? > > I'm having a hard time seeing that, either. > > The bNode could still carry properties e.g. Inverse Functional Properties, sufficient to get it mixed up with another node standing for the same thing. "could" - yes, you can set things up so it's possible. But even then it does not happen by the simple act of reading two files into the same (programming language) graph (container). I've not seen it happen - I've only seen Seq used as structured values, not as resources to be further described. Andy > > Dan
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 20:07:06 UTC