- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:05:11 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Ivan, On 7 Sep 2012, at 14:32, Ivan Herman wrote: > I have re-edited > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Minimal-dataset-semantics > > to separate the issues. I have merged some of the issues where I felt that was helpful, and also incorporated Richard's extra issues. Have a look to see if I misunderstood something. Looks good to me. > If we three agree (and I have the impression we do), then we may ask the chairs to put this on the agenda next week... +1. Although we perhaps should start with another vote on the ISSUE-21 proposal we had on the table this week. As I said in [1], I am now confident that the underlying issue (When are two blank nodes the same and when are they not?) can be solved by tweaking the definitions of blank nodes and/or graph stores, regardless of the decision we take on ISSUE-21. Best, Richard [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Sep/0056.html
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 16:05:40 UTC