W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:21:09 -0500
Message-Id: <v04210105b760fb607257@[]>
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?


>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
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2001 11:21:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC