- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:35:46 -0800
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:39 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: ... > >> 4. "Blank nodes MAY be shared between graphs in an RDF dataset." Um, I now see that this can be understood in different ways. What I think (hope) is intended here is, that if the same bnodeID is used in two graph documents in the same dataset, then that means that those two graphs do share a bnode. But what it could be read as saying is that whether or not they share the bnode is optional: they might or they might not. Which would be a very unfortunate reading. > > You are right. > > How about simply lowercasing the MAY? It's not meant as something that's optional for conformance, but simply to indicate a possibility. So, MAY in the RFC2119 sense is inappropriate. agreed. > Alternatively, “can be shared”. All improvements, but they still don't rule out the unfortunate reading. I think extra words are needed to do that, unfortunately. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 18:36:19 UTC