Re: reification test case

On 2002-02-04 0:47, "ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com"
<jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.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
> 
> Yes
> (confirmed with Euler)
> 
> the _:s2 in the entailed graph
> could have been any _:label
> 
> actually I see that already
> 
> _:s1 <property>      "property" .
> 
> entails
> 
> _:s2 <property>      "property" .
> 
> so I don't see the point of reification
> 
> --
> Jos
> 
> 

I'm quite curious how you come to this result, since
bNodes are distinct and there is no definition by
RDF, that I'm aware of, that two bNodes of
type rdf:Statement which have an intersection of
the same S, P, and O triples are the same "thing".

The two bNodes reify the same triple, but are
distinct reifications in their own right. No?
Why wouldn't we treat them as distinct resources?

What am I missing here (honestly)?

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 Monday, 4 February 2002 02:57:19 UTC