W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Indicating Skolem Nodes (was Re: AW: {Disarmed} Re: blank nodes (once again))

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 04:43:22 +0100
Message-Id: <772B96C1-590D-48F6-97A4-9EEDF3E9A35E@garlik.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Personally I think the uc&r are reasonably well understood, though it can't hurt to capture them.

It's not so much designing a solution as agreeing some conventions around what people already do. 

- Steve

Sent on the move.

On 4 Apr 2011, at 02:34, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> All,
> I've created a skeleton wiki page for collecting use case and
> requirements for skolomizing bnodes:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/BnodeSkolomization
> I encourage all who are interested to add their use cases and
> requirements.
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:21 +0530, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> David,
>> are all those metadata necessary at all? 
> That depends on the use case.   *I* don't think they are necessarily,
> but I was specifically trying to avoid making too many assumptions about
> other people's use cases until requirements have been collected together
> in one place and we can see how they fit together.
> I think some good brainstorming has been done here on the list, but I
> think if we are going to actually start designing a solution then the
> requirements really should be collected first.
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 03:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:23 UTC