W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Blank Nodes and SPARQL

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:33:59 -0500
To: Ron Alford <ronwalf@umd.edu>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Amy Alford <aloomis@glue.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <1121099639.10719.238.camel@localhost>

On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 22:04 -0400, Ron Alford wrote:
> After consulting with the lab, we have decided that the namespace
> splitting proposal (_!:...) is the best way to deal with the use cases
> that have been brought up.
>
> While we believe that the protocol prebinding is nice and generally
> useful, we would prefer a syntax level solution to the bnode problem.
> 
> The function extension (ext:bnodelabel) comes in a distant third.  It
> adds annoying overhead to templating queries.  We were also concerned
> with how well implementations will deal with function extensions.

And what of the "Dynamically assign identifiers" option? I'm
interested to know whether you find it acceptable.

> So I drop my original comment suggestions in favor of either namespace
> splitting or prebinding.  The function extensions have yet to convince
> me, but there's still room.
> 
> 
> Finally, I'd like to thank Amy Alford, Kendall Clark, and Bijan Parsia
> for all their help and input into this issue.  I'd also like to thank
> the members of the dawg who've been so responsive to this issue both on
> the list and in IRC.
> 
> -Ron
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 16:34:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT