W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2012

A different take on b-scopes (ISSUE-107)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:48:09 +0000
Message-Id: <0FF80BF7-0755-4704-AAE2-A9E6BE6F7651@cyganiak.de>
To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
So here's a modified proposal. (The old one is still further down on the same page.)
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes

What this does:

* Takes an old 2004-style definition of blank nodes
* Adds a new subsection on “blank node identifiers and scopes”
* Defines scopes more formally by saying that they have an associated “1:1 mapping (bijection) between blank node identifiers and blank nodes”

The goal was to make scopes an add-on to the definition of blank nodes, rather than baking them right into the definition. I may be wrong but that seemed to be at the heart of both Antoine's and Andy's concerns.

If this changes anyone's view of the whole thing (in a good or bad direction), then please comment.

The new proposal keeps the following bit, which Antoine and Andy may also have objected to, but which for me is the key sentence to the whole endeavour:

  “The sets of blank nodes in any two scopes are disjoint.”

If you think that this sentence shouldn't be there, then I'd really like to hear the case argued, because I don't understand the reason for this objection.

Best,
Richard
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 23:48:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:53 GMT