- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:57:15 -0500
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> >On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: >> > >> >> On Thursday, October 4, 2001, at 09:34 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >> >> >> > I would prefer test1.nt to only have one line if they are >> >> > identical. The >> >> > graph is a set. >> >> > A comment explaining the deletion would then be helpful. >> >> >> >> Whoa, whoa, whoa, I don't think we ever agreed to this. It was >> >> my understanding the output was a bag (there wasn't harm in >> >> doing so), but could be interpreted as a set. >> >> >> >> When was this changed? >> > >> >The MT would give the same interpretation for equivalent arcs in a >> >multigraph, wouldn't it? >> >> Yes, in fact RDF graphs are multigraphs. However, that means that the >> MT works just as well if they are sets or bag. Bags is semantically >> harmless and puts a lighter burden in implementers, so I would vote >> for bag. > >Sets are semantically harmless too and put a lighter burden on me as an >implementer :-) , so I'd rather do the following: > >- treat rdf storage systems as sets (maybe, unless they do something >groovy with provenance) >- warn consumers of TripleIterator streams that they may see the same >statement more than once >- and so on. > >In other words, the behaviour of an application over time as assertions >and retractions are made is a decision that the application-writer has >to make and advertise to his users. Yes, that seems like the most sensible path to take. We should be very clear that we officially don't give a damn. 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 Friday, 5 October 2001 14:57:15 UTC