RE: Reification - whats best practice?

--On 26 August 2004 18:59 +0300 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> Pat Hayes and Jeremy Carroll can probably provide some
> arguments with more "meat" (there were some MT issues
> which made things hairy), but one reason why bnodes are
> disallowed as graph namess is because bnodes are graph-specific,
> and the intention is that graph names are inter-graph in,
> scope i.e. global. Thus statements about a particular graph
> can occur in some other graph, which would preclude (in
> that case at least) using a bnode.

Why should that be an intention? Why can't the modeller decide whether a 
graph name is inter-graph or not? Why should it be any less desirable to 
have bnode named graphs than it is to have bnodes at all?

I can imagine that MT problems might provide a substantive reason to avoid 
it, but the argument that they are supposed to be inter-graph sounds to me 
like they aren't allowed "because they aren't".

Cheers,
Hamish