- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:04:30 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 26 Jan 2006, at 21:42, Pat Hayes wrote: >> No, not "disallows". I'm noting that the current text in the XML >> result set doc says that labels are scoped to the XML file. The >> XML file is a standalone unit of information that can be >> interpreted without reference to anything else. In particular, >> two XML results can't be related by blank node labels unless the >> application/client has some other piece of information. >> >> The labels may have wider scope - they may not - it does not say >> (I don't read "scoped to XML doc" as "only scoped to XML doc" - an >> engine can just dump in global, non-IRI identifiers for blank node >> labels but clients can't rely on on that fact, or the stablility >> of them unless the service makes additional information known. > > Ah, OK, then this has been a misunderstanding for me all along. Ive > been assuming that bnodeIDs in an XML answer document must be > considered to be local to that document. > > If not, how can anyone determine what the intended scope of the IDs > is supposed to be? If it can be extended arbitrarily, there is no > general way to determine how to combine results from multiple such > documents. (Do we separate bnodes or not? Only an open-ended search > for information can tell for sure.) > > IMO it would be simpler and clearer to say that XML answer > documents determine the scopes of their identifiers. This would > seem to be in line with all other XML useage. This doesn't preclude > told-bnode transactions in SPARQL engines which communicate answers > in other ways, which I think gives Enrico his type-A window (and > would satisfy the UMD requests made earlier). This makes sense to me. --e.
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 07:04:40 UTC