- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 21:22:17 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 7/5/20 12:43 AM, Aidan Hogan wrote: >> :Bob :has _:b1 . >> :Bob :has _:b2 . > [ . . . ] > Many agree with this idea that _:b1 and _:b2 might refer to two > different things in an RDF graph (and many do not). I think that RDF > semantics does not contradict this assumption (it states that Bob has at > least one thing, which does not contradict him having two or more > things). However the semantics is weaker than what some might want (Bob > has at least two things, or Bob has exactly two things). Like you say, > other semantics would give those stronger meanings ... but not without > leading to other undesirable cases, like if you parse the document > twice, using different parsers or from different locations, now you > might end up assuming that Bob has (at least) four things, six things, > eight things (unless you now lean blank nodes). Again, if a higher-level RDF language required each object to have a (possibly composite) key, this problem would go away. David Booth
Received on Monday, 6 July 2020 01:22:30 UTC