- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:35:28 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>, rdf-i <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Is the N3 semantics of a bnode shared between two formulae clear? One of the motivations to allow bnodes as graph names was for N3 compatibility. Jeremy Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > It will take some time to reply to this one .... > > It is intentional that you can include a bnode in multiple graphs in the > same graphset and it is intended that that has file scope. However that > is not fully thought through yet. It might turn out to be wrong as we > proceed with the next stage of the work. > > Jeremy > > > > > > > Benja Fallenstein wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jeremy, >> >> I'm at a bit of a loss as to how graph naming should be represented in >> an actual application that syndicates TriX files from multiple places. >> What if two TriX graphsets describe the same graph, but inconsistently >> (i.e., different sets of triples)? >> >> It seems necessary to be able to not only say, "B said that C," but >> also, "A said that B said that C." >> >> Also, I'm confused by your use of bnodes. Your graph naming algorithm >> requires that one bnode can be shared by different graphs in the same >> graphset. That's quite a deviation from the RDF abstract syntax, and >> would require significant changes to implementations, I think. I would >> be more comfortable if you would only use URIs for graphs, and specified >> that <id>foo</id> in one graph in a set is not the same as <id>foo</id> >> in another. >> >> - - Benja >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iD8DBQFAK2zDUvR5J6wSKPMRArAEAJ4tj3+LBEUG87mi3pwWQKH55SOqEACeN0YR >> CojVGshQIsoFIuOAY71+Jt0= >> =LiBr >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > >
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 13:38:41 UTC