- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:24:43 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > Well, oddly enough, I did once do some work on three-valued logics, and > was thinking about that when commenting on the f*s. But I now think > that what that "truth-table" is about is syntactic identity, not > equality (ie same referent). I so love that whooshing sound as something passes completely over my head :( I'm not sure what is meant by syntactic identity, and I'm not sure why I should care about it. The truth table shows (s,_)=(s,t) as f*. The character strings "(s,_)" and "(s,t)" are clearly different, so that can't be what is meant by syntactic identity. If (s,_) could be equal to (s,t), then presumably it could also be equal to (s,w) where w != t. Does that mean we can conclude that (s,w)=(s,t) - not according to the truth table. Are we be dealing with an '=' operator which is not transitive? Maybe (s,_) can equal (s,t) or (s,w) but not both at the same time. Does (s,_) denote exists(x): (s,x) ? In my naive view of the world, the literal denoted by ("foo", "http:/lang/en") is not equal to ("foo", _), just the same as the pair (1,2) is not equal to (1,3). What is the value in making this any more complicated? I'm expecting when some a bunch of rdf/xml or n-triples is read that we can be definitive about the number of unique triples in the graph that results. It worries met that f* will cause me to lose that property. I think I'm just confused. Brian
Received on Monday, 17 September 2001 13:28:42 UTC