- From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:47:59 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 01:57:15PM -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > >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. To represent this with test cases, given: <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:eg="http://example.org/"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org"> <eg:property>some property value</eg:property> <eg:property>some property value</eg:property> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> then it seems like we'll need two resulting .nt files. One with: <http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> "some property value" . and the other with: <http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> "some property value" . <http://www.example.org> <http://example.org/property> "some property value" . Would some test cases like this reflect the WG's decsion on this?
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 08:48:02 UTC