Draft answer KK-7 (was: uniqueness of bnodelables per query (comment KK-7))

draft answer is here:

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:KK-7

please let me know if that works for you.

Axel

On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> 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 10:51:19 UTC