On May 20, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> I was certainly presuming with the idea that both literal and blank
>> nodes would not be allowed. That might indeed be "nice but not
>> practical"; not sure.
>
> The latter is not permitted by the RDF specs, since the bnode
> variation is implied by the URI one. You're simply removing a piece of
> information from the RDF graph, and RDF allows information to be
> removed without problem.
Not following Dan. What is "not allowed"?
And what's the upshot? That defining a property as an IFP would not
preclude bnodes?
Bruce
|