W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Named graphs

From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:52:45 +0200
Message-ID: <402BCB7D.8090107@gmx.de>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf-i <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
| It will take some time to reply to this one ....

Ok.

| One of the motivations to allow bnodes as graph names was for N3
compatibility.

Good point; I didn't see that before. When you find time, could you list
the other motivations also?

| Is the N3 semantics of a bnode shared between two formulae clear?

Yes, but that is clearly not in conflict with the abstract syntax,
because N3 uses RDF reification.

I know that RDF reification is problematic because it is de re; I
understand why you want to provide an alternative. It's just that
amending the abstract syntax is not a small step and so I'm interested
in the motivations, how it should be implemented, &c.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAK8t9UvR5J6wSKPMRAn8IAKCX3QXePqrzjJKVlaLs83km9m8REgCcCA/p
XqckZ4uJ/+6Ml9fPX66Sya0=
=UU5U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 13:53:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC