- From: Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 12:59:51 +0000
- To: Laura Morales <lauretas@mail.com>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
It really sounds like the definition of blank nodes, which have their issues. Why not just use _: rather than invent a new thing that means the same? On 19/11/2018 12:48, Laura Morales wrote: > > - I think "blank properties" would be useful for practical purposes, for example _:find-this-book-at, and for me they would be equivalent to <undefined:>. But rewriting the standard to include blank properties would be a much harder task than simply accepting a <undefined:> URI > -- Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk> You should read our team blog at http://blog.soton.ac.uk/webteam/
Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 13:00:18 UTC