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 16:52:05 -0600
Message-Id: <p06230925c00052492501@[10.100.0.23]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>
>>
>>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.

Yeh, well, having tried, I can't find anything in the logs which 
really supports anything in my proposed reply, I have to confess. I 
recall Jos saying that he liked treating query bnodes as blank 
variables, and Enrico that he didn't, but I don't think the relevant 
IRC log has made it into the archive yet. I guess I could cite emails 
in the email archive, but that hardly seems to satisfy protocol.

Not sure how to proceed at this point. I could tweak the wording of 
the reply so that it doesn't refer to anything that the WG 'decided' 
but is phrased purely informatively, maybe? Your call.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:52:16 GMT

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