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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:21:58 -0600
Message-Id: <p0623091bc00014a4b203@[10.100.0.23]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@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.

Ah, yes, I should do that.

>
>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.

No, lets stick to protocol, it would be a good discipline to get back 
to. Sorry I squirted this off in 'explain intuition' mode rather than 
'respond official' mode. I will correct in time for Tuesday.

Pat

>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 18:22:08 GMT

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