- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:20:50 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 12:33 PM 12/14/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >>If you import that file twice, regardless of whether or not you change >>the Name of the resource referenced by _1, the blank node _1 is *not* >>the same resource across two different parsing activities, while the >>named node http://www.cnn.com/ *is*. > >Well, the blank node is not a resource at all, in the sense you mean. Its >a node in a graph. The question I think you are addressing is whether one >can be sure its the same node in the same graph across two different >parsings of the same file, and I agree with you in general, one cannot. Also: [[ This notation uses a nodeID convention to indicate blank nodes in the triples of a graph. Note that while node identifiers such as _:xxx serve to identify blank nodes in the surface syntax, these expressions are not considered to be the label of the graph node they identify; they are not names, and do not occur in the actual graph. In particular, two N-triples documents which differ only by re-naming their node identifiers will be understood to describe identical RDF graphs. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#nodeIDnote and: [[ It might be thought that the operation of changing a bound variable would be an example of an inference which was valid but not covered by the interpolation lemma, e.g. the inference of _:x <ex:a> <ex:b> . from _:y <ex:a> <ex:b> . Recall however that by our conventions, these two expressions describe identical RDF graphs. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#entail #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:20:02 UTC