- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:37:56 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Ha! I think PatrickS was right :) > >The test case Jeremy presents can be made deterministic. > >The problem is that the XML spec says that the order of the >attributes is not significant. But we can define an ordering to >determine in what order to add the statements to the bag, e.g. we >could say sort the attributes by their qnames and insert in that >order. It would take a little more than that to precisely define >the ordering, but you get the idea. This is sufficient to order >them since they attribute names must be unique. > >Two questions: > > o does it work? Maybe, but it might not, and it looks like a quagmire to me. Eg we will need to define that ordering very precisely in a way that nobody can argue about (...qnames???) > > o is it worth it, or do we just accept the non-determinism. Id say accept the nondeterminism. The worst that can happen is that poor dumb RDF has two bags that it gives different names to, but a more bag-savvy engine can see are really the same. But RDF is always in this condition; two urirefs *might* co-denote in a way that is invisible to RDF, that's always a possibility. >Anyway, it seems like syntax issue, not a MT one. Agreed. I think this is only an issue at all because of a lingering feeling that RDF ought to be something like a programming language. THe moral is, get used to the fact that it isn't a programming language. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 11:37:08 UTC