- From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:52:45 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf-i <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Carroll wrote: | It will take some time to reply to this one .... Ok. | One of the motivations to allow bnodes as graph names was for N3 compatibility. Good point; I didn't see that before. When you find time, could you list the other motivations also? | Is the N3 semantics of a bnode shared between two formulae clear? Yes, but that is clearly not in conflict with the abstract syntax, because N3 uses RDF reification. I know that RDF reification is problematic because it is de re; I understand why you want to provide an alternative. It's just that amending the abstract syntax is not a small step and so I'm interested in the motivations, how it should be implemented, &c. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAK8t9UvR5J6wSKPMRAn8IAKCX3QXePqrzjJKVlaLs83km9m8REgCcCA/p XqckZ4uJ/+6Ml9fPX66Sya0= =UU5U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 13:53:44 UTC