- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:16:17 -0500
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 02/17/2013 11:41 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > Let's just agree that we won't open the door to graph name > denotation, and will maintain this illusion for BNode graph names > too. As I recall, a referencing specification could always say that > graph names _do_ denote the graphs, for the purposes of that > specification. I'd be fine with this. I was just trying to see if my proposal might trigger some alternative view of how to address the graph names name-but-not-denote problem. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 17:16:47 UTC