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

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

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:51:49 +0000
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C86733E9-A86F-4747-9A7E-4E6E9CD90C6D@garlik.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Agreed.

On 2011-03-01, 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.
> 
> 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
>> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 12:52:24 GMT

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