W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

RE: Questions about Update 1.1

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:05:04 +0000
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693FA225DC@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Gregory Williams
> Sent: 16 October 2009 19:03
> To: Steve Harris
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group
> Subject: Re: Questions about Update 1.1
> 
> On Oct 16, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> 
> > Yes, agreed. A similar thing happens in 4store, but for different
> > reasons. The only promise we make is that if you get a bNode ID out
> > in SPARQL results, then you can reuse that ID in <_:$id> until you
> > do an update on the graph it came from, at which time it may no
> > longer be valid.
> 
> Thinking ahead here a bit, would it be possible for the implementors
> of such things to define an IRI representing the logic here? In this
> case, I'd like an IRI I could use with sd:feature for "if you get a
> bNode ID out in SPARQL results, then you can reuse that ID in <_:$id>
> until you do an update on the graph". Obviously this is outside the
> scope of the WG, but think it would be great to have such things
> earlier rather than later when it comes to explaining the benefits of
> service descriptions.

+1 to having a URI to name this.

> 
> thanks,
> greg
> 

Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 14:05:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT