- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:17:29 +0200
- To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-03 19:46, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > We have to decide on Dan Brickley's equality test. Does > > _:s1 <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > _:s1 <rdf:subject> <subject> . > _:s1 <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > _:s1 <rdf:object> <object> . > > _:s2 <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > _:s2 <rdf:subject> <subject> . > _:s2 <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > _:s2 <rdf:object> <object> . > > _:s1 <property> "property" . > > entail: > > _:s2 <property> "property" . > > Brian No. To explain this with a practical case in point, consider that <property> is in fact <authority> or <source>. Properties ascribed to the statement bNode are regarding a particular instance of the reified statement. There may be more than one source and/or authority for what is essentially the same expression of knowledge. The bNode of the reification gives us the placeholder by which to associate such qualifications. The fact that two or more reified statements share an intersection of S, P, and O values does not mean that the two statement bNodes should be merged or that they share properties. At least that's my take on it. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2002 13:17:05 UTC