Issue name: 023-SyntaxEquality

No sense to define equality on literals

Raised by:

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Raised on:

2002-10-27

Raised in message:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0053.html

Target document section reference(s):

http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-Graph-syntax

Status:

Closed

Last updated:

2002-11-18

Owner:

Jeremy Carroll

Details

The RDF graph is syntax.  As such it makes no sense to define a notion
of equality over literals, which are pieces of syntax.  It is just as
if one wanted to defined equality in C by defining it over pieces of a
C program.  Similarly, it makes no sense to define equality of nodes
or triples.

History

2002-10-27: Raised

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0053.html

See: 022-SocialMeaning.html

See: 024-Various.html

What is the point of defining the notion of equality on literals and other syntax elements?

2002-10-28: Assigned

Syntax issues assigned to Jeremy.

2002-11-18: Closed

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0126.html

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0141.html

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0158.html

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0159.html

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0164.html

Citation is Jeremy's response on this matter. The equality definition remains, but with words to point out that this is not always useful for applications.