- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:19:28 +0200
- To: Heiko Paulheim <paulheim@ke.tu-darmstadt.de>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
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. > >
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 13:04:36 UTC