- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:04:08 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 12:52 10/09/04 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: >One issue I see is that Named Graphs as currently defined by only >allow URIs whereas several of the context and provenance proposals >use or allow blank nodes - several have been given in earlier >messages. > >In our work for the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group (DAWG), it >would be good to know whether URIs alone are sufficient, or if as we >suspect, many people want graphs named with blank nodes such as for >triples from inference. I thought there were problems with the >scoping of blank-node named graphs, somewhere in one of the named >graph papers. FWIW, my implementations both would allow sub-formulae to be associated with either bnodes or URIs. Generally, I'd expect to be able to use a bnode wherever a URI can be used (and such would be valid entailment according to RDF semantics). Of course, if you want to make reference to such things from *outside* a graph within which it occurs, it seems reasonable to insist on having a URI. (Though in some of my work, I have found that I want to be able to create nested (graph-)scopes for bnodes. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Sunday, 12 September 2004 14:39:43 UTC