danja: please add any that might be useful
Welcome to the Semantic Web Interest Group scratchpad generated automatically from discussions on IRC at irc.freenode.net port 6667 channel #swig by the chump bot, instructions in the chump user manual. Please use UTF-8 charset on IRC and pastebin for code or data more than 10 lines long.
Nearby: IRC logs (Latest) | semantic-web list | ESW Wiki (Recent changes) | del.icio.us swigbot
Shepard: though the reasons given seem very vague to me: if I understand it correctly then the semantics of named graphs are just not well-defined enough for the purposes of the W3C and it's not in the scope of the working group to do it
Shepard: so I wonder: now that with SPARQL we have a recommendation which has explicit support for named graphs, does that change anything about the situation? or what are the potential problems that have to be solved first in order to bring named graphs to RDFa?
Shepard: does the RDF model itself have to be revised first? (I guess this would also include allowing for literals as subjects)