- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:21:09 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Brian McBride wrote: > > > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > p.s. This message is really about an existing issue > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources > > > > This is a key issue for getting the abstract syntax nailed down. Since we > > are talking about it anyway, and its timely, lets activate it. DanC, would > > you like to own it? > >Well, I would, but I gather that means proposing a resolution >including test cases, and I don't see how to represent this >issue with test cases of the sort we've been doing; >this isn't a question of what n-triples you get from an RDF >document; it's a question of what the n-triples (specifically >the _:xyz terms) mean. > >My position is represented by my n-tripes2kif.pl code; i.e. > > _:x <...prop> "val". >means the same thing as > (exists (?x) (...prop ?x "val")) That would mean then that it is impossible to 'use' an anonymous node more than once, in contrast to a genid. Is that really right? Eg the anonymous node which anchors a container is referred to by more than one triple. Shouldn't you allow the scope of the existential to expand a little? Pat >i.e. to resolve this issue is to decide the formal semantics >of RDF. I guess I can work with Graham on this abstract >syntax and formal semantics stuff. [Graham, please let's >keep reification outa there.] > >btw... in consideration of owning this issue, I reviewed >the discussion linked from the issues list, and the >case against digest/skolem URIs is made pretty well in: > > Arguments against digest URIs > From: Jonas Liljegren (jonas@paranormal.o.se) > Date: Sun, Jan 02 2000 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jan/0001.html > >in sum: we could, perhaps, encode all the information >about an existentially quantified term in some >sort of hash, but it would have to be a hash of the >whole formula/document, not just of the triple(s) >in which the term appears. And to do that is >at least very costly and constraining on implementations, >if not paradoxical/impossible. > > > > (If know its hard for you to make it > > to the teleconferences - but I think we can work round that) > > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2001 11:21:11 UTC