W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

RE: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:14:20 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <025e01ce6168$7be6cf20$73b46d60$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 7:29 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> D1.   We include something like bound semantics [1] and
> blank-node-graph-names in rdf-concepts (and rdf-mt if appropriate),
> with the blank-node-graph-names being optional, as a "SHOULD", with
> Skolemization provided as an alternative.   (I'm not entirely clear
> what the SHOULD applies to, since I don't exactly know what an
> "implementation" of RDF is.     But I think we can handle that)


The SHOULD might become easier to address if we tackle it from the other
side by saying that (legacy) systems that require graph names to be IRIs can
use skolemization to work around that restriction.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 21:14:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:34 UTC