RE: test case A revisited

• From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:41:41 +0100
• To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMEENCEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Pat,

I found both your messages on test case A confusing.

I'll try and explain why, and suggest you may like to reconsider them.

At the f2f the suggestion we were looking at is that the denotation of a literal
in a triple is a function of the predicate and the literal.

Thus test case A holds since in it both the predicate and the literal are the
same.

However this suggestion is untidy in our previous terminology.

Brian's questions about test case A were asked in this framing, and you seem (to
me at least) to have missed the point.

e.g.

> There are two cases to consider, right? We can have (semantically)
> tidy literals, where each literal node labelled with the same literal
> denotes the same thing; or we can not. Call these the ST and NST
> cases. Test A is 'yes' for ST, 'no' for NST.


???? not what we had at the face to face. We favoured an untidy possibility in
which test case A, and hence Brian's container example held.


Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 05:41:50 UTC