- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:44:07 -0400
- To: Samuel Yang <syang@peoplemoverinc.com>
- Cc: "'Dan Brickley'" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>, "'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "'rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk'" <rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk>
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 12:26:06PM -0700, Samuel Yang wrote: > I should amend the end of the 1st paragraph of my message below to read: > > I can see that two seemingly identical literals used in two > different contexts (e.g., used with two different predicates) should > probably not be considered identical. However, I don't see any reason not > to consider two statements to be identical when they contain identical > subject and predicate resources and "identical" literal objects. For > instance, under what scenarios should the triple (#A, #B, "2") not equal the > triple (#A, #B, "2")? app1 adds (#A, #B, "2") app2 adds (#A, #B, "2") app1 dels (#A, #B, "2") app2 queries for (#A, #B) values and should get "2". Also, while a votes system could be implemented with an rdf container (thereby assigning unique ordinals to each vote), I don't beleive the language dictates, that. Take this with a grain of salt, didn't thing about it long. -- -eric (eric@w3.org)
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 15:44:13 UTC