- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:18:26 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote: > >>>Brian/Pat - were does the WG stand on duplicate triples? > > >Actually, I'm not sure :( > >Let me try a strawman position: > >I agree with Pat that this seems to be more of an implementation >issue which is hard to discuss without a processing model. However, >using terms like parser, loosely: > > o it doesn't seem reasonable to require parsers to eliminate >duplicates - that would prohibit the development of streaming >parsers. > > o we need say nothing this in terms of representing an RDF graph - >it's up to the implementor whether they filter duplicates or not. >that way we don't break existing implementations of either family >for no good reason. > > o Pat seems to reckon the model theory is simpler with a set. Its only a slight matter. Sets are more traditional and its slightly easier to state some of the lemmas. No big deal either way. What I would like however is for us to decide it one way or the other, because I have to re-do the math every time we change it. >Can we extend the notion of a tidy graph so that it removes >duplicate statements. Any untidy graph has an equivalent tidy >graph, and the model theory is defined in terms of that. Yes, we can do that. Everyone go on that? 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 Wednesday, 24 October 2001 00:18:29 UTC