- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:55:12 +0300
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-06-28 9:09, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >> and every literal might or >> might not be the same as any other. > > ... that's the definition of untidy literals, no? > > You can't tell whether two literals denote the same thing, > so you have to keep them separate until you know more. You have to keep their interpretation separate. But a given implementation could in fact use tidy storage so long as the semantics remains untidy. I.e. you can't base equality tests only on the basis that two literals are string equal, etc. but must include the contextual information about the occurrences of those literals when determining equality. Literals have untidy semantics no matter what. The choice for having untidy syntax in the *conceptual* model was to make that more explicit to users who might otherwise get confused if they see a tidy graph syntax with (implicit) untidy semantics. But just because the *conceptual* model uses untidy syntax does not mean that any particular implementation must do so. 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 Friday, 28 June 2002 04:50:42 UTC