At 18:35 12/02/04 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Is the N3 semantics of a bnode shared between two formulae clear? > >One of the motivations to allow bnodes as graph names was for N3 >compatibility. A very good question. I'd need to spend some time checking my implementation to answer that (w.r.t. my implementation, of course). I did notice that there is a weakness (==bug, I think) in some aspects of my inference engine implementation that I cannot "scope" bnodes to be local to a formula, or global. I think there are situations where eithe5r is required. That suggests to me that a comprehensive implementation would support both bnodes local to a formula, and also "exported" to a containing formula. Which in turn suggests an extension to the model. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#ContactReceived on Thursday, 12 February 2004 14:15:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT