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

Re: Named graphs

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:04:14 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>, rdf-i <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

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 

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.


Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 14:15:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:49 UTC