- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:37:26 -0500
- To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > Antoine brought forward what the change in entailment is between 2004 > and 2013. I did not catch that this was his concern. > > The change is that if you have a set of RDF graphs then they entail > what their union entails, instead of what their merge entails. > > This is a change. The question is whether this is a good change or a > bad change. To clarify, it is a change only for the case where graphs share blank nodes, which was not considered as a viable case (more an accident to be avoided) in the 2004 specs. Pat > > peter > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 19 June 2013 17:37:50 UTC