W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:50:28 -0500
Message-ID: <511FF114.3050501@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
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.

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.



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

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:50:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:36 UTC