- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Date: 20 Nov 2000 18:53:03 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk> writes: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, McBride, Brian wrote: > > > I can see that the disruption caused to current implementations > > would be a factor if m&s was ambiguous. But if the answer lies > > in m&s, I humbly suggest the spec takes precedence. That's what > > specs are for. > > Maybe I missed the appropriate post, but I'm unclear how we square the > set-oriented definition of 'Statement' with the syntactic ability to > assign various IDs (and hence URIs) to the XML occurances of RDF > statements. Or rather, I suspect we could do this, by adopting a strong > view on the "can a resource have multiple URIs" question that > periodically bedevils discussion here and elsewhere. Yes. We would view all the resource statements as aliases for each other if they represent the same statements. That would make it appropriate to join the properties for all the aliased resources. -- / Jonas Liljegren The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/ Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:51:17 UTC