Re: bNodes as graph identifiers (ISSUE-131)

Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

>
>
>On 31/05/13 17:00, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On 05/29/2013 01:47 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
>>> [ as a side note I find it bizarre that I'm having to advocate NOT
>>> changing a 14
>>> year old, industrially deployed spec, at the 11th hour of the
>>> standardisation
>>> process, to add a feature that's used by a tiny minority of deployed
>>> systems -
>>> if anything was to strike an outsider as peculiar about this WGs
>>> process, it
>>> would surely be this feature ]
>>
>> I don't understand this complaint at all.  This Working Group is
>> chartered to provide a standard mechanism for working with and
>sharing
>> multiple graphs.   In the chartering process in 2010, our various
>inputs
>> all said this was a very high priority.   A lot of folks said to add
>> Named Graphs or fix reification or something like that.
>
>Specifically, blank nodes for graph names, not datasets in general.
>

What 14-year old spec do you think Steve was referring to?

> Andy

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 19:28:11 UTC