- From: Heiko Paulheim <paulheim@ke.tu-darmstadt.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:21:01 +0200
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Oh. That clarifies a lot of things. Thanks, Heiko. Am 28.10.2011 11:19, schrieb Antoine Zimmermann: > Heiko, > > rdf:li is an *XML* element defined by the RDF/XML serialisation > syntax. It is NOT a term defined by the RDF vocabulary. In RDF, it > does not mean anything in particular. rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc don't mean > much either but at least they are known to be > ContainerMembershipProperties. > > If you do not write RDF/XML documents, *never* use rdf:li. > > So, Graph 1 is completely different from Graph 2a and Graph 2b. > Graph 2a and Graph 2b are not equivalent either in terms of formal > semantics, but at least they have a certain level of "informal > equivalence" in the sense that they "intend" to describe the same set. > > > AZ > > Le 28/10/2011 08:59, Heiko Paulheim a écrit : >> Dear Pat, >>> The graphs are different. >> >> that hits me. If I consider the following three graphs: >> >> Graph 1: >> :b a rdf:Bag . >> :b rdf:li :ABook . >> :b rdf:li :AnotherBook . >> >> Graph 2a: >> :b a rdf:Bag . >> :b rdf:_1 :ABook . >> :b rdf:_2 :AnotherBook . >> >> Graph 2b: >> :b a rdf:Bag . >> :b rdf:_1 :AnotherBook . >> :b rdf:_2 :ABook . >> >> Given that the order of triples in an RDF document (especially in Graph >> 1) is considered not to be significant, is Graph 1 equivalent rather to >> 2a or 2b (while the latter two, as you say, are not equivalent to each >> other)? >> >> Thanks, >> Heiko. >> >> > -- Dr. Heiko Paulheim Knowledge Engineering Group Technische Universität Darmstadt Phone: +49 6151 16 6634 Fax: +49 6151 16 5482 http://www.ke.tu-darmstadt.de/staff/heiko-paulheim
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 09:21:32 UTC