- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:45:29 -0700
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Graham Klyne wrote: >[...] > > I think that in a model, or interpretation, there are just things that are > > denoted. > >Ah - I think thats the first time I've got stung by the ambiguity of the >term 'model'. > >I meant to suggest that the datastructure which represents RDF/XML, i.e. >the data model, must represent the anonimity, otherwise it is not >representing what was in the RDF/XML that was read. Yes. If we have genuinely anonymous nodes then they must be recognisable as such. I gather however that this is still an open issue, ie do we have genuinely anonymous nodes in an RDF graph/document, or does 'anonymous' simply mean 'unspecified', so that anonymous nodes have an URI (unique to the document which originated it) but we just don't say what it is ? To me, the interesting thing is that the model theory works just as well either way. Details coming, hopefully tomorrow. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 01:45:23 UTC