- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:20:21 -0500
- To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 09:47:42PM -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote: >> Meanwhile, I'd like to request that for the meeting, >> rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about is put on the agenda. I'd >> like the Working Group to agree to the proposed resolution and >> test cases at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- >> tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/ >> >> The key part of which is: >> >> """ >> Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a >> description, is equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute >> with the the '#' character followed by the URI-encoded form of >> the content rdf:ID attribute. >> """ >> >> Please try to send me comments on this before the meeting so I >> can make the necessary changes. > >My comments for the proposed solution were posted in: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0029.html > >This of course led to a fairly long discussion about duplicate >triples - a discussion for which I'm not sure we've reached consensus. > >Brian/Pat - were does the WG stand on duplicate triples? The MT can handle them if people want to allow them. They are 'transparent', ie duplicating a triple makes no difference to the meaning. (If we allow duplicates then some of the lemmas on inference will need to be very slightly re-worded to make sure all copies of triple are treated the same. ) I have the general impression that allowing duplicates is considered to be more of an implementation problem than not allowing them, so I would be mildly in favor of not allowing them. Then a graph can be identified with a set of triples. 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 Tuesday, 16 October 2001 10:20:17 UTC