RE: Are duplicate property/value pairs permitted for a resource?


I would have assumed that, after the deletion, app2 should have gotten a
NOT-FOUND result of some sort.

To cite Ralph Swick's last response:

> 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.

For the sake of argument, let's say that in your example the literal object
"2" is "the same" wherever it is used.

Then, since there should be only one apparent instance of the triple,
deleting the triple should make that one apparent triple disappear.  Anyone
querying for that triple after a deletion should not be able to find it any


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux []
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 12:44 PM
To: Samuel Yang
Cc: 'Dan Brickley'; ''; ''
Subject: Re: Are duplicate property/value pairs permitted for a

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
> 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.


Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 16:51:41 UTC