- From: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:51:53 -0700
- To: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 03/17/2013 05:42 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > Indeed. But there is still this old issue of, how do we state that two unrelated graphs don't share a blank node by accident, as it were? One way is to require that each complete surface-syntax document descibes a complete graph. This notion is consonant with the notion that a document is a signable, and seems to make room for the case of blank node identifiers for graphs. So once something parses the document and makes a 'subsurface syntax' then perhaps whether a node is blank or not is moot - implementations all seem to skolemize them anyhow. Only upon creating a surface-syntax extraction does one ever have to deal with the idea of identifying blank nodes and describing a complete graph. Charles -- Charles Greer Senior Engineer MarkLogic Corporation charles.greer@marklogic.com Phone: +1 707 408 3277 www.marklogic.com
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 17:52:16 UTC