On 19 Oct 2011, at 21:33, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> >> >> On 19/10/11 13:17, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:23 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> >> >>>> I don't mind how what we do to rdf:Seq but if we say "use blank nodes >>>> for Seq" (which then avoids the merge issues) it is a step forward (Ian >>>> -- skolemized system generated URIs would count as well) >>> >>> I can live with that, but I'm not sure why we'd say >>> dont-use-non-blank-nodes-for-Seq any stronger than dont-use-Seq. >> >> It avoids merge problems as the bNodes should stop two rdf:_1's on the same resource. > > Huh? How does that work? I mean, how do bnodes stop this happening? I'm having a hard time seeing that, either. The bNode could still carry properties e.g. Inverse Functional Properties, sufficient to get it mixed up with another node standing for the same thing. Dan >> > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 09:00:20 UTC