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