W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: 6.3 -- proposal for (informal) dataset semantics

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:32:30 -0700
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <F7D54FFE-16EF-4F72-B984-0E18FB8A187E@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Sorry, I'm rather behind on mail, just catching upů

On 27 Apr 2012, at 11:54, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>    I expect the idea of allowing blank nodes to be used as graph labels
>>    to be controversial, but I think it's important for convenience
>>    and to clarify the semantics in the face of possible dereference
>>    operations.  I understand it presents some issues, including
>>    SPARQL compatibility.  I propose we consider this AT RISK through
>>    CR and see how those issues pan out.
> It is a real shame that this proposal starts by being controversial when there may be much to agree in it.
> "AT RISK" at this stage is signalling an open issue.
> On the blank nodes,
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-01-04#Issue__3a__should__2f_must_the_4th_slot_be_an_IRI__3f_
> Can we start where there is most agreement which, as I understand it, is IRIs for labels?
> It is then up to those who want bNode for labels to persuade everyone else.
> Let's take a strawpoll.

Did this strawpoll happen? I agree with Andy. Introducing controversial elements into this at this point isn't particularly helpful.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian 
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:33:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:17 UTC