- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:48:32 +0100
- To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 26, 2007, at 8:24 AM, Jos de Bruijn wrote: [snip] > I do think that it is important to have a common definition for local > names. I was already afraid that at one point some people might think > that local names are the same as bNodes :-) [snip] What I am about to say is a tad provocative, but wouldn't it be nice if bNodes *were actually* local names? Aligning nicely with their dominant interpretation and implementation? I certainly wouldn't mind a RIF mode or flag that supported interpreting bNodes as local names. That would conflict with the RDF semantics spec, but accord with common understanding and practice. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 07:48:58 UTC