- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:11:09 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:03 AM 11/15/01 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >No? Why not? How is it that you conclude that bnodes >in different graphs are different? I don't see it stated >in the model theory. It appears it's not stated directly, and probably should be since that was (to me) clearly the intent of our discussions. Also, the final sentence of this text from section 2.0 pretty clearly signals that intent: [[[ This effectively treats all unlabeled nodes as existentially quantified in the RDF graph in which they occur. Notice that since two nodes cannot have the same label, there is no need to specify the 'scope' of the quantifier within a graph. (However, it is local to the graph.) If we were to apply the semantics directly to N-Triples syntax, we would need to indicate the quantifier scope, since in this lexicalization syntax the same bNode identifier may occur several times. The above rule amounts to the N-triple convention that would place the quantifiers just outside, i.e. at the outer edge of, the N-triple document corresponding to the graph. ]]] #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> __ /\ \ / \ \ / /\ \ \ / / /\ \ \ / / /__\_\ \ / / /________\ \/___________/
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 11:26:38 UTC