Andrew Newman wrote: > Isn't that nearly always going to be wrong? I mean just because an > bnode has the same properties (say first name and last name or even just > first name) doesn't mean they are the same thing. Second sentence is true but irrelevant to the first. A reduction from G to G' is sound and complete iff G entails G' and G' entails G by the RDF Semantics. This definition, which in my view is a useful take on the RDF Recs, may be worth implementing in software (not that I have done so). Any semantic processing of G that does not work on G' is potentially non-interoperable and requires thought. In particular counting the number of bnodes linked by an eg:foo edge to eg:bar should not make any material difference (i.e. semantically relevant) to the actions of an RDF processor. JeremyReceived on Monday, 15 March 2004 04:26:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:48 UTC