- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 12:43:23 +0000
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
good afternoon; > On 2020-10-23, at 13:58:07, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote: > > Hoger, > > On 23/10/2020 00:48, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> (...) >>> That's why we need to have an extended semantics for RDF*. >> >> Not necessarily. I still think this can be solved by simply declaring >> reification on bnode triples to be unsupported. >> >> Yes there are theoretically some scenarios where this might be useful, >> but I'd rather say "if you want to use RDF*, use IRIs and no bnodes" >> than having to extend the very core model of RDF just for this corner >> case. > > Whether this is a corner case or not remains to be discussed, IMO. > > Would you mind creating an issue on github with this proposal; we can > have a quick +1 / -1 poll on that issue, and see what the community > thinks… should that happen, please take case to distinguish structural from semantic nodes. --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Friday, 23 October 2020 12:43:36 UTC