Re: missing bit of RDF for XML people

On 04/02/2005 13:50, Henry Story wrote:
> Ok. But it is very clearly not what the original author
> of the xml intended. Since
>  - if the blank_predicates for both statements are the same then
>  you would be saying that there is a country that is related in
>  the same way to the string "Canada" and "France".

I would assume that two separate country elements would produce two 
separate blank nodes of type country:

(blank_node1) - (blank_predicate1) --> "Canada"
(blank_node1) - type --> country
(blank_node2) - (blank_predicate1) --> "France"
(blank_node2) - type --> country



>  - And if the blank_predicates for both statements are different
>  then you would  be saying that there is a country that is related
>  in some unknown way to the strings "France" and in some other unknown
>  way to the string "Canada". Which would not be saying very much, since
>  for any two things there is some relation that relates them.
Isn't that the original basis for this discussion: the notion that the 
XML hierarchy infers some sort of relation, but you can't know what it 
is without additional documentation.

Ian

-- 
http://internetalchemy.org | http://purl.org/NET/iand

Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 15:01:38 UTC