- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:58:07 +0200
- To: "ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <brian_mcbride@hp.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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