RE: a bnode URI scheme?!

> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Jeremy - I don't follow why G must G'. Isn't it sufficient for G'
> to entail G? Am I missing something?
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>

Hi James,

if G' is a subset of G then G always entails G' and there is no issue. If
that's your point, I agree.

On the other hand, if G' is some arbitrary other graph then it might include
other facts that are not in G, even if G' entails G - in which case
replacing G by G' is unsound.

Jeremy