RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

At 10:25 AM 10/3/01 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>But those URIs and literal values retain their full identity disjunct
>from any other URIs or literal values, right?
>
>Does this mean that in the (new?) RDF graph model, a resource node
>can have multiple labels?

No, just zero or one label for each graph node.  But these may or may not 
be interpreted as the same thing in the domain of interpretation.

Remember that a graph node is just part of the syntactic structure as far 
as the model theory is concerned.  The interpretation (mapping) functions 
LX and IS yield corresponding values;  two nodes may be thus mapped to the 
same value.

...

I think there's still an open question about the nature of this value.  On 
the web, one can retrieve several different values using the same URI (e.g. 
via content negotiation).  How is this captured?

One thought I have is to map a graph node to a thing called a "resource", 
and have an extension set associated with each resource that corresponds to 
the "entities" that can be retrieved using the URI, or are otherwise 
associated with the resource.  Under this approach, equivalence of 
resources means that they have the same extension sets.  This is similar to 
the treatment of RDF classes, and I think it sits more easily with RFC 2396 
description of a resource as a "conceptual mapping" separate from 
particular associated entities.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 05:09:37 UTC