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

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 09:32 -0700, Steve Harris wrote:
> Sorry, I'm rather behind on mail, just catching up…

Quite the challenge.   :-/

> 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.

I don't think we did that particular strawpoll, but I don't see that as
a blocking issue -- we can proceed with drafting and flip that bit
easily, later.   In my drafting since then, I've used neutral language
on this subject or kept it as an IRI.   

I really don't like making non-unanimous resolutions saying we're never
going to go into some part of the design space while we're still mostly
in the dark.   I think I know the lay of the land now, and am trying to
turn it into an ED.

   -- Sandro


> - Steve
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 17:20:38 UTC