W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Direct Mapping spec. comments (mostly editorial)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:52:44 +0100
Cc: "Barclay, Daniel [USA]" <Barclay_Daniel@bah.com>, "public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4B3247B7-E877-4292-B6A3-7CD7FD11E58B@cyganiak.de>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
On 18 Sep 2012, at 14:14, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> In 3: "blank node that is unique to this row.":
>>  That doesn't (locally) specify the scope of that uniqueness.  Is that
>>  scope specified somewhere?
> RDF blank nodes are globally unique. given any two RDF documents, the bnodes are defined to be disjoint.

Well, I don't think that there's specification text to back up either of these statements.

This is in the realm of the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax specification, which unfortunately is rather vague on the subject of blank node scope. The current RDF Working Group intends to improve the RDF Concepts spec in that regard.

There's a widespread folk understanding that's consistent with what Eric said above.

> given that, i think this text suffices.


There's very little that the Direct Mapping spec can do to clarify the situation here without potentially stepping onto RDF-WG toes.

Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 13:53:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:58:20 UTC