- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 15:25:25 -0400
- To: Samuel Yang <syang@peoplemoverinc.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk>
At 11:55 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Samuel Yang wrote: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/1999AprJun/0011 (Thanks to Dan Brickley for fielding this question first.) > Two resources with the same URI always refer to the same >resource. yes. This doesn't mean the resource content won't change from moment-to-moment, of course. > But literals, not having URIs, have apparently been left bereft >of a formal definition of equality. yes. This is not an oversight. The question of identifying equality in XML text is outside the scope of RDF. > However, I don't see any reason not to >consider two identical literals to be equal. For instance, under what >scenarios does "2" not equal "2"? It does get tricky. Mostly it depends on your application. Consider, for example, the following two fragments of XML text: 1: <span xml:lang="en">2</span> 2: <span xml:lang="fr">2</span> Are these the same? What techniques would your application(s) use to test equality? Would those techniques work in the following two cases: 3: <rdf:RDF xml:lang="en" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core#"> <rdf:Description about="http://www.dlib.org"> <dc:Date>1995-01-07</dc:Date> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> 4: <rdf:RDF xml:lang="fr" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core#"> <rdf:Description about="http://www.dlib.org"> <dc:Date>1995-01-07</dc:Date> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> >Practically speaking, it would be a bad idea to keep adding "duplicate" >statements having the same literal objects, Indeed it would. If your application cannot distinguish the literals then you just have a garbage collection problem. How you handle it is mostly up to you :-) >(3) Delete all the "duplicate" statements (again, how can it do that when >these statements are not considered equal?)? Whatever the implementation does, it should present the external appearance that there is only one instance of any given triple {x,y,z} for the "same" values of x, y, and z. Sameness is the critical question, which the RDF/XML syntax can't yet answer. I hope (and expect) that either the XML Fragment Working Group or the XML Information Set Working Group will be able to clarify this question for the specific syntax in time. -Ralph Swick W3C/MIT
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 15:25:12 UTC