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@[]>
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 

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.

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC