- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:00:18 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 15:10 26/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > > > > Oh, then my question must not have been clear. You claim that XMP is > > untidy. I am asking whether there is an objective test whether an API is > > tidy or not. > > > > That is a valid question, right? Hmmm, you don't seem to have responded to this. [...] >I would say that Jena is fairly agnostic overall. Yet that is not the result the test you described in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0300.html would give. I'm having a little trouble understanding what consistent test you are applying. > The single >equality comparison method suggests a syntactic comparison, >rather than a semantic comparision (which is understandable, >given the generic nature of Jena) and the fact that equality >is tested on the entire statement means that Jena has nothing >to say about whether the following entailment holds or not: > >IF > Jenny age "10" . > Movie title "10" . >THEN > Jenny age _:x . > Movie title _:x . I suggested in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0284.html [[model.contains(c, d, a.getProperty(b).getObject())]] was an accurate representation of the entailment. Would you accept that? [...] Brian
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 09:03:13 UTC