W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: uniqueness of bnodelables per query (comment KK-7)

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:59:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4D6C530B.4050206@thefigtrees.net>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2/28/2011 8:54 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>
> On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:46, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>
>> My personal feeling is that it would be _very_ confusing to allow the
>> same bnode label in two BGPs but have it refer to distinct blank nodes.
>> You'd have a situation where sometimes (within the same BGP) two
>> mentions of _:a would be the same and other times (in two BGPs, perhaps
>> separated by BIND or something like that)  they wouldn't.
>>
>> Please let me know if anyone feels otherwise. If there appears to be
>> silence / consensus, then I will draft a response to Kjetil.
>
> That was my feeling as well, I just thought that this motivation was probably discussed in DAWG1 already s.t.
> we can refer to it in the answer.

I don't remember specifically discussing the option of allowing the same 
label in 2 BGPs but having it refer to different blank nodes.

Lee

>
> Axel
>
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> On 2/28/2011 8:15 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> in order to answer comment KK-7
>>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jan/0009.html
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure that this has been discussed in depth and there is some DAWG1-discussion
>>> about this issue somewhere back in the archives... If anybody from our DAWG1 members
>>> feels like pointing me to it, I'd be grateful!
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 02:00:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT