- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:14:12 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > > >And I buy Guha's point at the Bristol F2F that with untidy > literal semantics > >rdf:object refers to the syntax of the triple not its semantics. > > That is reopening an old issue where I believe we have already > decided the > value of the reification properties do not denote the syntax. > > Are you suggesting this treatment be special for rdf:object? > Just when it > takes a literal value? No, I think you have misunderstood. I am not reopening any issues. In <rdf:Description rdf:ID="subj" > <eg:p1 rdf:ID="statement">10</eg:p1> <eg:p2>10</eg:p2> </rdf:Description> There are three triples with "10" as object: <#subj> <eg:p1> "10" . <#subj> <eg:p2> "10" . <#statement> <rdf:object> "10" . My understanding of the model theory (any version) is that nothing special links the interpretation of the "10" in the third triple to the interpretation of the "10" in the first, which is not also true of the second. i.e. in a tidy model theory all three "10"'s are "10"; in an untidy model theory all three "10"'s are unconstrained. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 08:14:40 UTC