W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Graphs / IRs / Blank Nodes - related strand

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:09:06 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=x0ajB05u_FBLzZxpF-38Ne2_kwXvr4igCSSm6@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> See attachment
>
> Seems a bit unfortunate that they're taking the upper right route,
> while we're taking the lower left, but so it goes.
>
> If they're claiming the G-SNAP

sorry, I meant G-BOX

> is an IR... well it's not clearly in
> agreement with TimBL.  I'm not sure I care as there is no way to tell
> the difference, as far as I can tell - the two boxes are isomorphic,

strike that. not isomorphic.  blah, clicked 'send' too soon.

> and the diagram commutes.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> FYI, a conversation Pat and I have been having on the RDF WG
>>
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0114.html
>>
>> there's a lot more context, but that's about the top and bottom of it, named
>> graph (named g-box) that changes over time ("IR" then), blank node
>> identifiers scoped to the name where one exists, and where not then just to
>> the serialized rdf as per usual.
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 21:09:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 4 March 2011 21:09:40 GMT