- 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