- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:03:53 +0100
- To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[sorry for the delay in answer, but I still have to scrape this from the rdfcore archive because my mail is still not coming through] > > 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, this is plain MT At the end of chapter 2. Simple entailment between RDF graphs. you may find [[[ It might be thought that the operation of changing a bound variable would be an example of an inference which was valid but not covered by the interpolation lemma, e.g. the inference of _:x foo baz from _:y foo baz Recall however that by our conventions, these two expressions describe identical RDF graphs. ]]] after all, bNodes are blank (circles with nothing in) -- Jos
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 05:07:35 UTC