- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:24:45 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: andy.seaborne@hp.com, Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 8 May 2006, at 23:26, Dan Connolly wrote: > > Regarding > ACTION: DanC find decision record for bnodes in predicate > I'm not able to confirm from records that the WG decided > to take bnodes out of the predicate slot. > > As of 11 Oct, we were resolved... > > "that the grammar in 1.501 addresses issue punctuationSyntax" > -- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005OctDec/ > att-0055/11-dawg-minutes.html#item04 > > > And as of 1.501 the Verb production was VarOrBlankNodeOrIRIref. > > As far as I can tell, the issue has remained closed since then. > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#punctuationSyntax > > The change to take BlankNode out of Verb was in... > > Revision 1.629 2006/01/30 17:38:14 aseaborne > - Removed bnodes from triple pattern predciate position > Definition and syntax > > I don't see a relevant decision between 11 Oct and 30 Jan. > I could be missing it, but I'm looking pretty hard. > > The WG approved the CR candidate (1.664 2006/03/21), > but as we're discussing, it's inconsistent about whether > bnodes are allowed in Verb or not. > > Perhaps the WG approved a relevant test case? I'm not > sure how to search those easily. Yes, there's one here: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-bnodes-04-rq From the 2005-06-07 minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0411 " RESOLVED: to address punctuationSyntax ala the 70-ish tests in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/SyntaxFull/ PatH and EricP abstaining " I think I brought this up a few weeks ago, when I realised there was a conflict. - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 07:24:51 UTC