Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

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