W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Question about RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax: 7.6.1 Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:26:47 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-comment@w3.org, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FD2A29A1-C90D-4451-9373-9468101DC1E2@3roundstones.com>
To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
Hi Simon,

Thank you for your interest in the future of RDF.  The RDF working group acknowledges receipt of your comment and question.  We will formally respond to your message in the coming months.

You raise an interesting point and we want to discuss it before officially responding.

Regards,
Dave




On Jun 13, 2011, at 13:01, Simon Reinhardt wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I know this is an editor's draft in early stages and it's a bit early to comment on it. But I read something in it which I don't quite understand:
> 
> Under http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-skolemization it says "This transformation does not change the meaning of an RDF graph, provided that the Skolem IRIs do not occur anywhere else."
> 
> Doesn't that contradict one of the basic RDF ideas that adding triples can never change the semantics of previously stated triples? At least that's how I always understood it.
> 
> And where else is a skolem IRI supposed to appear or not appear? In another graph somewhere on the Web? Do I have to fear now that someone on the Web might publish something that suddenly changes the meaning of the graph stated in my RDF file? And what would it be that they could do to accomplish this?
> 
> Thanks,
>  Simon
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 01:27:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT