- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:34:37 +0300
- To: "ext LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1)" <james.lynn@hp.com>, "ext Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On 2003-10-01 18:41, "ext LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1)" <james.lynn@hp.com> wrote: > So just to make sure I'm not missing anything, 1 has a node named _:x which > is a blank node in 3 Both 1 and 3 have the blank node, and are identical expressions of the same graph. In 1, a local identifier is used as NTriples doesn't provide for the contracted form expressed in 3. But they represent the same identical RDF graph. > and is totally omitted in 2. Right. 2 expresses a different graph than 1/3. > But for these > differences, they would all be equivalent. > > 1 <#me> ex:myFriend _:x . > _:x ex:emailAddress <mailto:somebody@example.com> . > > > 2 <#me> ex:someFriendsEmail <mailto:somebody@example.com> . > > > 3 <#me> ex:myFriend [ ex:emailAddress <mailto:somebody@example.com> ] > They wouldn't be explicitly equivalent. But given a pair of inference rules relating the two forms, one could entail either of the two graphs from the other. I.e. IF ?s ex:myFriend ?o . ?o ex:emailAddress ?a . THEN ?s ex:someFriendsEmail ?a . IF ?s ex:someFriendsEmail ?a . THEN ?s ex:myFriend ?o . ?o ex:emailAddress ?a . Cheers, Patrick
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 02:35:32 UTC