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

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

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:16:17 -0500
Message-ID: <51211061.4000703@digitalbazaar.com>
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
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 17:16:47 UTC

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