W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Re: On equivalence of tidy/untidy (was: Re: Reopening tidy/untidy decision)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 30 Sep 2002 11:33:30 -0500
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1033403611.13755.260.camel@dirk>

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 11:17, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> Summary: it seems that tidy/untidy is an implementation detail...
> My conjecture is that there is no way to distinguish whether an 
> application deploys tidy or untidy semantics.
> Therefore, it's an 
> implementation detail, which matters only for defining a standard, 
> W3C-blessed RDF API, and is irrelevant for the spec we are working on.

False; here's the test case:

consider a similar example:

   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Film">

Though the title of the film and the age of Jenny are both written as an

The formal definition of this question is whether, given the second of
RDF fragments above, entails (implies) the following (expressed in

   <jenny> foo:age   _:l .
   <film>  foo:title _:l .

-- Semantics of non-datatyped literals: Rationale (version 1)
From: Brian McBride (bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com)
Date: Mon, Sep 30 2002

We have several pieces of code that one can test using this
test case (cwm, euler, some graph matching code that
Jan uses, Jena, others?). The WG owes the community a
clear yes/no answer to whether that entailment holds.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 12:33:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:15 UTC