- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:07:34 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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