- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:32:30 -0700
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Sorry, I'm rather behind on mail, just catching up… On 27 Apr 2012, at 11:54, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> I expect the idea of allowing blank nodes to be used as graph labels >> to be controversial, but I think it's important for convenience >> and to clarify the semantics in the face of possible dereference >> operations. I understand it presents some issues, including >> SPARQL compatibility. I propose we consider this AT RISK through >> CR and see how those issues pan out. > > It is a real shame that this proposal starts by being controversial when there may be much to agree in it. > > "AT RISK" at this stage is signalling an open issue. > > > On the blank nodes, > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-01-04#Issue__3a__should__2f_must_the_4th_slot_be_an_IRI__3f_ > > Can we start where there is most agreement which, as I understand it, is IRIs for labels? > > It is then up to those who want bNode for labels to persuade everyone else. > > Let's take a strawpoll. Did this strawpoll happen? I agree with Andy. Introducing controversial elements into this at this point isn't particularly helpful. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:33:05 UTC