- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:17:50 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri2011@danbri.org>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-10-19, at 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.
Doesn't that equally apply to lists and functional properties though? It's just a modelling error. In the presence of OWL reasoning with "bad" data or schema, all bets are off.
G1 {
<x> :functional (1 2 3) .
}
G2 {
<x> :functional (4 5 6) .
}
- Steve
--
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 09:18:25 UTC