Re: uniqueness of bnodelables per query (comment KK-7)

On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:46, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> My personal feeling is that it would be _very_ confusing to allow the
> same bnode label in two BGPs but have it refer to distinct blank nodes.
> You'd have a situation where sometimes (within the same BGP) two
> mentions of _:a would be the same and other times (in two BGPs, perhaps
> separated by BIND or something like that)  they wouldn't.
> Please let me know if anyone feels otherwise. If there appears to be
> silence / consensus, then I will draft a response to Kjetil.

That was my feeling as well, I just thought that this motivation was probably discussed in DAWG1 already s.t. 
we can refer to it in the answer. 


> Lee
> On 2/28/2011 8:15 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > in order to answer comment KK-7
> >
> >
> > I am pretty sure that this has been discussed in depth and there is some DAWG1-discussion
> > about this issue somewhere back in the archives... If anybody from our DAWG1 members
> > feels like pointing me to it, I'd be grateful!
> >
> > Axel
> >

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 01:54:37 UTC