- From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:32:52 -0500
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I have the following action from last week's meeting: ACTION: LeeF to look back through minutes and mailing list to determine if the group has made a past decision on blank node scope The summary is that beyond the decisions implicit in approving the texts for LC1 and LC2, I do not believe the working group has made a decision on the scope of blank node identifiers in a query. The details: At the end of August, Kendall re-opened the issue [bnodeRef] in response to a message from Bijan [bijan-answer-scope]. I first note that this is *not* the same issue that we are currently discussing as "blank node scope" / "bnode scope" / "blank node label scope" / "bnode id scope". (The issue on the issues list appears to me to concern the scope of blank node labels within the answers to a query. We'll take that up before we advance to Last Call.) The discussion in recent times seems to have been raised by Fred [fred-comments] and dates back to our June 27 meeting [june-27-minutes]. At that meeting, Eric took an action to take Fred's suggested tests and turn them into test cases. That was the last meeting before our July siesta, and Eric claimed victory on the action with his test cases submitted to the list on August 14 [counting-tests]. This is where the thread got muddled a bit; Fred's original tests cases touch *both* on the cardinality of answers to queries containing blank nodes and *also* on the scope of blank nodes. The former of those two issues has since been decided when we approved the #rdfsemantics-bnode-type-var test at the end of November [duplicate-answer-resolution]. But for the time being, at least, the blank node label scope issue seems to have been abandoned. Since then, I can't find any more meeting discussion of blank node label scope until this past week. On the mailing list, Fred suggested extending the scope of blank node identifiers in queries beyond the BGP in October [fred-suggestion]. That mail message doesn't seem to have generated any response. That's about all I've found in recent months on the topic. [bnodeRef] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#bnodeRef [bijan-answer-scope] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0191.html [fred-comments] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0171.html [june-27-minutes] http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-dawg-minutes [counting-tests] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0099.html [duplicate-answer-resolution] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/att-0175/28-dawg-minutes.html#item04 [fred-suggestion] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0104
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 03:33:03 UTC