W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Draft response to: Re: major technical: blank nodes

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:07:34 -0600
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1138316854.4991.789.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 16:50 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> <<After volunteering for this I noticed that Dan 
> had already responded to this message with an 
> [OK?], so this might now be redundant.

oops.

>  But here 
> goes anyway.>>


> [...]
> >In addition, the term "blank node" creates a false analogy with RDF.
> >An RDF blank node is a node in a graph with no IRI.  A SPARQL blank node
> >is not a node at all, it is actually a variable that cannot be named in
> >the SELECT list. 
> 
> We disagree.

That's the sort of place where I like to refer to a recorded
decision.

Your message is full of argument that isn't directly supported
by WG records. That's fine if the WG endorses it...

Meanwhile, I took some similar liberties in my message...
some of which are arguably wrong.

Hmm... I'll have to think this over.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:07:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT