- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 13:19:00 -0400
- To: tpassin@home.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com> Subject: Re: How do RDF and Formal Logic fit together? Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:24:51 -0400 > [Sean B. Palmer] > > > > Yes, and my point is simply that you have already reified > > > all the statements de facto within the computer, why throw > > > that information away (at least, when it matters) when you > > > serialize it? > > > > Are you stating that when a processor comes across a reified triple, it > > should store it in <s, p, o, id> form internally? If not, if you > > recursively processed in-out a piece of RDF, you'd end up with a horrible > > reified mess. > > > > No, I'm saying that most processors would in fact store the equivalent of > <s, p, o, id> as you say (although the id might be implicit, for example, > the position in an array), so why throw that information away or make it > hard to access when you serialize? Even though <s, p, o, id> might be used > internally, the rdf model doesn't actually contain that construct, does it? > > Cheers, > > Tom P > Perhaps for a reason similar to the reason that you should throw away white-space when inputting RDF triples? If the information is not sanctioned by the RDF specification (either M&S or the model theory or whatever), then it is not part of RDF and should not be in a serialization. Putting it in only makes the job of processing RDF harder---what is an RDF processor supposed to do with it sees such a quad? Now if you are saying that RDF specification should be changed so that this information is part of RDF, then go ahead and make a proposal. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2001 13:20:04 UTC