- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:46:49 -0600
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > >I.e., I've understood that my X proposal was quite >> >similar in principle to your P++ proposal in that it >> >defines urirefs and literals as just labels of nodes, >> >and nodes are unique in the graph, >> >> I am puzzled, since this is just true of all RDF graphs: urirefs and >> literals ARE labels of nodes, and nodes ARE unique. Right. So what >> does it mean to say that the X proposal 'defines' this to be the >> case? All of RDF assumes this to be the case, surely (??) > >Not in terms of "tidying". > >Of course, nodes themselves are unique. What I meant is that >while nodes with the same uriref labels might get merged, >nodes with the same literal labels (or no labels) would >not. Ah, I see. Yes, I agree that the P(++) and X require literal nodes to be nontidy. P++ uses the node as the carrier of the datyping information in the model theory. >Thus, each literal is "hosted" by its own node and those >don't ever merge. This allows literals (or rather their nodes) >to serve as subjects. Actually that is a separate issue, I think. One could have literal subjects with or without the tidiness condition. For example P (not P++) requires nontidy literals but doesn't require literal subjects. IN haste Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 15 November 2001 17:46:36 UTC