W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: scope review and an altenative phrasing.

From: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:51:53 -0700
Message-ID: <51475439.1020106@marklogic.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:26 UTC