Re: Blank Nodes and SPARQL

On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 22:04 -0400, Ron Alford wrote:
> After consulting with the lab, we have decided that the namespace
> splitting proposal (_!:...) is the best way to deal with the use cases
> that have been brought up.
> While we believe that the protocol prebinding is nice and generally
> useful, we would prefer a syntax level solution to the bnode problem.
> The function extension (ext:bnodelabel) comes in a distant third.  It
> adds annoying overhead to templating queries.  We were also concerned
> with how well implementations will deal with function extensions.

And what of the "Dynamically assign identifiers" option? I'm
interested to know whether you find it acceptable.

> So I drop my original comment suggestions in favor of either namespace
> splitting or prebinding.  The function extensions have yet to convince
> me, but there's still room.
> Finally, I'd like to thank Amy Alford, Kendall Clark, and Bijan Parsia
> for all their help and input into this issue.  I'd also like to thank
> the members of the dawg who've been so responsive to this issue both on
> the list and in IRC.
> -Ron
Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 16:34:05 UTC