- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:23:41 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 07-09-2012 18:05, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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. > Both will be on the agenda; to be available soon (editing now) Guus > Best, > Richard > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Sep/0056.html
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 10:24:10 UTC