- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:04:14 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>, rdf-i <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 18:35 12/02/04 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Is the N3 semantics of a bnode shared between two formulae clear? > >One of the motivations to allow bnodes as graph names was for N3 >compatibility. A very good question. I'd need to spend some time checking my implementation to answer that (w.r.t. my implementation, of course). I did notice that there is a weakness (==bug, I think) in some aspects of my inference engine implementation that I cannot "scope" bnodes to be local to a formula, or global. I think there are situations where eithe5r is required. That suggests to me that a comprehensive implementation would support both bnodes local to a formula, and also "exported" to a containing formula. Which in turn suggests an extension to the model. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 14:15:31 UTC