- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:30:03 +0100
- To: <kevin@globalplatforms.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> What are the technical issues, specifically contradictions > that are causing you grief on this issue? I'm wary that anonymous nodes make it difficult to merge documents because you end up in a mess assigning IDs to them, and that there are no use cases that totally require anonymous nodes to be used. I'm quite sure that RDF could have got along just fine if they were not proposed in the first place, and indeed that if someone had just proposed them, they would have been flamed down as impractical. But it should also be noted that I don't care either way too much... as Pat points out, there's no explicit harm in including them in RDF. They make some things trickier, but it's also useful to have existentially quantified nodes available by writing <rdf:Description> in XML RDF, or "[]" in Notation3, and not having to provide a URI. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2001 18:30:22 UTC