- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:14:40 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 20:15:09 UTC
On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:42 , David Booth wrote: [snip] > >> >> The restriction of "no labels" is not just about "no cycles" - it's >> things that are not tree-like: >> >> :x1 :p _:a . >> :x2 :q _:a . > > Yes, excellent example. I explained to Pat in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2012Dec/0040.html > why I chose the "no labels" restriction instead, but I'm open to > considering either. > I think it would still be better to explain these things in a syntax independent way. After all, I may want to use JSON-LD or RDFa... Distilling the various mails and concentrating on bnodes only, what seems to be the pattern is - bnodes can appear in at most one triple as an object - there can be no cycle in the graphs involving bnodes Would that suffice as a more formal definition? Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 20:15:09 UTC