- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:59:39 -0500
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2/28/2011 8:54 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > 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. I don't remember specifically discussing the option of allowing the same label in 2 BGPs but having it refer to different blank nodes. Lee > > 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 02:00:17 UTC