- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@home.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:14:45 -0400
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[David Allsopp ] > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > [Tom Passin wrote] > > > Indeed, if you think of a set of triples as being rows in a relational > > > database table, then ask what would be the primary key of > > > that table? The > > > only sensible answer is that the primary key must be the > > > combination of the > > > subject and predicate. The "semantics" could also be > > > considered to be a > > > kind of "business rule", to use an expression from a different domain. > > > Taking this relational database viewpoint, each node must > > > necessarily have a > > > value (or label), but it may be that a particular > > > implementation could hide > > > the label, or exclude it from serialization. > > > > Exactly. This is what I was trying to get at with my examples that > > autogenerated identities of "anonymous" nodes based on their > > "context" made up of the subject and predicate. Having the same > > consistent identity makes comparison of values and enforcement > > of constraints much more straight forward. > > As I said before; I like the idea, but I don't see how it can work in > practice, because we don't know the complete context (which may differ > from agent to agent, and from time to time) and an incomplete context > can be ambiguous. > That's why I said it's hard - I think that's pretty well agreed - but maybe not hopeless. Anyway, I'm not ready to give up the hope that this difficulty can be overcome. Tom P
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 09:11:31 UTC