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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:34:34 +0000 Message-ID: <5121069A.5000806@epimorphics.com> To: public-linked-json@w3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org> · This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:36 UTC



On 17/02/13 13:15, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2013, at 21:19, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:

>> I suspect that it's your preference for a stronger referencing
>> semantics which prejudices you against bnodes as graph labels.
>
> I do not think so. I actually do not have a strong opinion on the
> bnodes-as-graph-labels issue. What I am uneasy about is that, *if we
> use them*, they would represent a different semantics as IRI-s which
> is my understanding of Pat's emails. That is all.

+1

	Andy