- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:08:59 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: > First, it is not too late to fix the mistakes in RDF. As far as I know, the > implementations of N3 don't respect the existential semantics of blank > nodes. And you kept saying in this thread that N3 is an RDF language. Don't go there. First, even if there was some reason to change the specification of RDF, it should not be within the scope of any putative rules working group to do so. Second, many RDF implementations do try to respect bNode semantics. For example by representing bNodes in stored triples by skolem constants and bNodes in queries by query variables. They will *also* allow programmatic access to the implementation objects that represent bNodes for the purposes of manipulation and editing but that doesn't detract from the existence of conformant APIs. I'm not sure why you are particularly singling out N3, and I am not a CWM expert, but my understanding was that CWM *does* attempt to respect the semantics of bNodes. Dave
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 09:10:17 UTC