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

Re: proposal to close ISSUE-77 (Re: [ALL} agenda telecon Oct 19)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri2011@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:53:59 +0000
Cc: "Andy Seaborne , Sandro Hawke , public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Message-Id: <415D3432-588D-4603-92F8-336613597C56@danbri.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>




On 19 Oct 2011, at 21:33, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 19/10/11 13:17, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:23 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> I don't mind how what we do to rdf:Seq but if we say "use blank nodes
>>>> for Seq" (which then avoids the merge issues) it is a step forward (Ian
>>>> -- skolemized system generated URIs would count as well)
>>> 
>>> I can live with that, but I'm not sure why we'd say
>>> dont-use-non-blank-nodes-for-Seq any stronger than dont-use-Seq.
>> 
>> It avoids merge problems as the bNodes should stop two rdf:_1's on the same resource.
> 
> Huh? How does that work? I mean, how do bnodes stop this happening?

I'm having a hard time seeing that, either.

The bNode could still carry properties e.g. Inverse Functional Properties, sufficient to get it mixed up with another node standing for the same thing.

Dan


>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 09:00:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT