- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:36:20 -0600
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 6, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Pat, > > Thanks for these helpful comments from back in May. Responses inline. All fine except just one point I am going to double down on. >> 3.5 >> >> "This transformation does not change the meaning of an RDF graph, provided that the Skolem IRIs do not occur anywhere else." >> >> (I know we agreed on this wording long ago, but...) You might add something like >> >> "It does however permit the possibility of other graphs subsequently using the IRI to also refer to the same entity, which was not possible when the node was blank." > > I'm a bit scared of touching anything in that section as it seems likely to open a can of worms. So I'll reply saying that the current wording sounds good enough to me; but feel free to raise an issue to propose the addition. > Yes, I think I will. Thanks for the suggestion :-) Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 03:36:55 UTC