- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 20:44:49 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 7/3/20 4:10 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote: > On 2020-07-02 17:56, Anthony Moretti wrote: >> id: _:fraction1 >> type: Fraction >> numerator: 1 >> denominator: 2 >> batteryPercentageOf: laptop1 >> >> id: _:fraction2 >> type: Fraction >> numerator: 1 >> denominator: 2 >> batteryPercentageOf: laptop2 >> >> Again, the algorithm will return different IDs, but they're the >> same value. >> >> Something that I think might assist in this area would be if >> mainstream value types had accompanying comparison operations. > > I agree regarding Example 1. In Example 2, I think that _:fraction1 and > _:fraction2 are different things (they are readings for different > laptops; I would not say, for example, that two people are the same > because they share the same date of birth). If a (possibly composite) key is known for an object, then other properties can and should be ignored in computing a canonical node name for the object, so that some degree of automatic graph leaning can occur, which would be quite helpful. In fact, I've started to think that *every* object should be required to have a (possibly composite) key, just like with standard relational database practice. A higher-level RDF-ish syntax could even enforce such a rule. David Booth
Received on Saturday, 4 July 2020 00:45:03 UTC