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

RE: dataset stuff as an extension or optional feature

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:07:41 -0700
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF47428C13.A7A169EF-ON88257B81.0010861E-88257B81.00112E98@us.ibm.com>
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)


There is no doubt that the industry will benefit from having a possible 
point of convergence, which is what a SHOULD provides.

Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 03:08:12 UTC

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