- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 01:54:03 +0000
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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. Axel > > Lee > > On 2/28/2011 8:15 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > in order to answer comment KK-7 > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jan/0009.html > > > > 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