Re: Draft response to: Re: major technical: blank nodes

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 16:50 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
> <<After volunteering for this I noticed that Dan 
> had already responded to this message with an 
> [OK?], so this might now be redundant.

oops.

>  But here 
> goes anyway.>>


> [...]
> >In addition, the term "blank node" creates a false analogy with RDF.
> >An RDF blank node is a node in a graph with no IRI.  A SPARQL blank node
> >is not a node at all, it is actually a variable that cannot be named in
> >the SELECT list. 
> 
> We disagree.

That's the sort of place where I like to refer to a recorded
decision.

Your message is full of argument that isn't directly supported
by WG records. That's fine if the WG endorses it...

Meanwhile, I took some similar liberties in my message...
some of which are arguably wrong.

Hmm... I'll have to think this over.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:07:39 UTC