Re: rdf11-concepts WD ready

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 :-)


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

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 03:36:55 UTC