- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:48:40 +0100
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
[[[ 15:37:48 <sbp> sbp has joined #rdfig 15:38:29 <sbp> <AaronSw> sbp, any thoughts on the anonymous nodes proposal the WG is discussing today? 15:38:32 <sbp> * sbp chases that up 15:40:18 <sbp> taking that to be the thing discussed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0141 15:42:13 <sbp> I'm indifferent to it. The proposal does not suggest that bNodes cannot be identified with URIs AFAICT, it just states that those particular resources do not have URIs in the model: that they are unlabelled. A resource could have a bNode in one graph and a URI in another, I presume, so that's alright 15:42:30 <sbp> er... actually, it does suggest that bNodes don't have URIs, but that's not what I meant 15:43:12 <sbp> s/suggest that bNodes/suggest that the resources identified by bNode labels 15:43:40 <sbp> I'm not massively happy with:- 15:43:41 <sbp> [[[ 15:43:42 <sbp> These names are not URIs, and 15:43:42 <sbp> > > their scope is the N-triples document in which they appear. 15:43:43 <sbp> ]]] 15:43:52 <sbp> what's a document, please? Normative definition? 15:44:35 <chaals> "This" 15:44:42 <chaals> * chaals hides 15:44:59 <sbp> This? 15:45:18 <sbp> come out of hiding, and lay your money on the table! 15:45:58 <ArtB-logg> ArtB-logg has left #rdfig 15:46:21 <sbp> I'm also not so sure about "asserting the existence of at least one resource". Don't forget that the existential itself is/can be/+ a resource 15:46:52 <sbp> I guess that's suitably implied, though... 15:47:22 <sbp> * sbp decides to mail this to Aaron "Two Monitors" Swartz ]]] - http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-10-12.txt Cheers, -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 12 October 2001 11:48:40 UTC