W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2007

a recent history of the scope of blank node identifiers

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:32:52 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA0849501.73A8D0B0-ON85257272.00060BBC-85257272.00137CC4@us.ibm.com>

I have the following action from last week's meeting:

  ACTION: LeeF to look back through minutes and mailing list to determine 
if the group has made a past decision on blank node scope

The summary is that beyond the decisions implicit in approving the texts 
for LC1 and LC2, I do not believe the working group has made a decision on 
the scope of blank node identifiers in a query. 

The details:

At the end of August, Kendall re-opened the issue [bnodeRef] in response 
to a message from Bijan [bijan-answer-scope]. I first note that this is 
*not* the same issue that we are currently discussing as "blank node 
scope" / "bnode scope" / "blank node label scope" / "bnode id scope". (The 
issue on the issues list appears to me to concern the scope of blank node 
labels within the answers to a query. We'll take that up before we advance 
to Last Call.)

The discussion in recent times seems to have been raised by Fred 
[fred-comments] and dates back to our June 27 meeting [june-27-minutes]. 
At that meeting, Eric took an action to take Fred's suggested tests and 
turn them into test cases. That was the last meeting before our July 
siesta, and Eric claimed victory on the action with his test cases 
submitted to the list on August 14 [counting-tests]. This is where the 
thread got muddled a bit; Fred's original tests cases touch *both* on the 
cardinality of answers to queries containing blank nodes and *also* on the 
scope of blank nodes. The former of those two issues has since been 
decided when we approved the #rdfsemantics-bnode-type-var test at the end 
of November [duplicate-answer-resolution]. But for the time being, at 
least, the blank node label scope issue seems to have been abandoned.

Since then, I can't find any more meeting discussion of blank node label 
scope until this past week.

On the mailing list, Fred suggested extending the scope of blank node 
identifiers in queries beyond the BGP in October [fred-suggestion]. That 
mail message doesn't seem to have generated any response. That's about all 
I've found in recent months on the topic.

[bnodeRef] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#bnodeRef 
[june-27-minutes] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-minutes
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 03:33:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:53 UTC