Re: RDF-ISSUE-142: rdfs:Graph ? comment [RDF Semantics]

We now have a proposal from Jeremy on this issue.

The guts of the proposal is carried in one simple but pernicious word:
MAY.  The proposal would allow RDF implementations to behave differently
from each other on the same entailment regime.   I view this as destroying
the last bits of interoperability in RDF, and thus will be voting against
it.

On the other hand, producing a new entailment regime that embodies the
difference in behaviour that Jeremy appears to want would fit right into
the way that divergence currently works in RDF.   I have no problem with
the WG producing a WG note defining this entailment regime.  I would even
be enthusiastic towards this note (but not to the point of writing any part
of it) if it defined several entailment regimes that differ in their
treatment of named graphs.

peter