- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:00:20 +0100
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: "pat hayes " <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 04:59 PM 9/20/02 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote: > >>Pat, I think I'm fine with that > >> > >>how can we express that > >>when given > >> _:l1 rdf:first :a . > >> _:l1 rdf:rest :b . > >> > >> _:l2 rdf:first :a . > >> _:l2 rdf:rest :b . > >> > >>then _:l1 and _:l2 are tidy > > > >Er...you can't. That is, there could be two lists with the same members. > >thus far I thought that 2 sequences with the same members >*are* the same sequence (i.e. the denoted thing is the same) >how could they ever be different, I mean semantically? I think that even though they may be different lists (containing different graph nodes), if IR is closed under list construction and the given semantics for rdf:first, rdf:rest then each must entail the other -- by virtue always being true. Tricker, I think, is how one gets the expected entailments when a list is related to some other entity -- I guess the OWL folks will have to sort that one. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 11:37:16 UTC