- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:47:55 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
On 12/11/20 11:59 AM, Lassila, Ora wrote: > I am with Peter on this. Particularly, discussions of syntax > are hard for me when I don't know exactly what's "behind the > syntax" (and I get these horrible flashbacks to RDF M+S WG). +1. I don't see how this can sensibly go forward without first having agreement about whether bracketed triples are asserted. As yet it looks indistinguishable from being a special syntax for an unnamed "named graph" that is limited to a single triple. David Booth
Received on Friday, 11 December 2020 17:48:09 UTC