- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:50:28 -0500
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
- Message-ID: <511FF114.3050501@openlinksw.com>
On 2/16/13 11:39 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > Yes, that is what I meant. The recent one. > >> >, but I may also infer that you want to come back on 'graph label ... cannot be assumed when an IRI is used to refer to the graph'. I would be opposed to open the latter, that would mean another 1-2 years of discussion. > No, I take that to be closed. But my point is, the bnode case (if we allow it) provides a neat way to provide some currently missing expressivity, while not going back or re-opening that earlier decision. So it looks like a win/win. > +1 This is a neat tweak, it doesn't break what exists. It closes incidental arguments such as the one that's arisen from threads with Manu. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:50:54 UTC