- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:04:26 -0600
- To: "Bauer, Herbert S. (Scott)" <Bauer.Scott@mayo.edu>
- Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, "markus.lanthaler@gmx.net" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "msporny@digitalbazaar.com" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Bauer, Herbert S. (Scott) wrote: > I've shared Manu's blog post with some of my counterparts here at Mayo, > and the response from at least one person is that JSON-LD has no real need > for bnodes as these can be supported through nested structures. There an > even more emphatic concern that much damage could be done to the RDF > effort if blank nodes are allowed to be used as predicates. Just out of interest, can you (or anyone) email me, off-list if preferred, what those concerns are? What kind of damage is seen as possible, if this were allowed? I ask because this construction is allowed in ISO Common Logic, and I am interested in reconciling RDF and CL. Thanks for any inputs. Pat Hayes ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 01:04:55 UTC