- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 21:17:23 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 31/05/13 20:27, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > 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? Best to ask him (but I'm reading "RDF" and referring to blank nodes, them not being anonymous individuals for better or worse) , simple entailment, leanness etc.) BTW: Are graph literals in N3 tidy or not? > >> Andy >
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 20:17:54 UTC