- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@home.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:11:06 -0400
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
<Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> > > Again, I repeat, the issue is not one of certainty, correctness, > or consistency of statements, but one of integrity and consistency > of *data*. > OK, I'm going to close this out with this last remark. You ***are*** going to lose information putting something into rdf interchange syntax - it's the well-known inability to round-trip. Once you flatten a nested structure into sets of triples, with interpolated nodes to take the place of the nested structures, you lose the information needed to fully reconstruct the original, right? You may claim that nothing important is lost ***for the purposes of RDF representation***, which may be true. Or you may add some triples to describe the original structure, which would mean adding thngs that weren't in the original. In any event, something has been lost or added. But I really just meant to be a little provocative (and not completely serious) by asking whether, if there were going to be some friction - information loss - in the overall system anyway , it would matter too much exactly where that friction occurred: "out there", or "in here" (in my own processor). Naturally, I don't advocate that we should casually allow our own processors to degrade data. Cheers, Tom P
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 09:07:55 UTC