- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:49:13 -0800
- To: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On 2010-01-14, Toby Inkster wrote: > >> * Explicit support for named graphs > > Yes, this would be a step forward. But if you look at them from the > logical or the semantic point of view, they are simply another > instantiation of reification. If we want to give them a proper > axiomatic semantics, we're right back into the debates which > surrounded reification from the get go. The idea in the named graphs papers was precisely to *not* go down that rathole. Name graphs are pragmatic layer and have no impact on axiomatic semantics. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 00:49:54 UTC