W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2013

Re: A modest attempt to re-open ISSUE-20

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:08:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR-8HOqitkUU6RVghebwewv6duyCkVBGSr-PJ37S6OngsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>

I realise my proposals with bnodes was not clear:
it was obvious for me that the bnodes are only used in the POSTed graph.
Once the LDP server receives it, it will coin a URI for the new resource,
and replace the bnode with that URI,
and store *that* new graph.

So the bnodes will never be exposed outside the POST query.
I agree that bnodes are, in most cases, a pain in the arm.

Regarding hash-URIs, I reallt don't get your argument.
These problems (DNS ownership, etc.) are supposed to be solved for the LDP
which is the one coining the URI (see above).
After that, the client is free to PUT more triples in the new resource
including triples with hash-URIs based on the resource's URI
(now that the client knows that URI).


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 3/14/13 2:50 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> I guess I still prefer my alternative, as blank nodes are really that:
>> variables. They exist precisely to denote a resource whose URI we don't
>> know. I agree that it does not allow me to create hash-URI, which is a
>> shame.
> Yes, but the "shame" costs are "deceptively high" and inherently
> exponential due to the following user burdens:
> 1. requiring domain name ownership
> 2. requiring DNS server access with associated privileges
> 3. requiring Web server access with associated privileges
> 4. requiring URI re-write rules for handling Linked Data Name->Address
> redirection -- when a URI denotes an entity that you can't associate with
> any Web or Internet content-type .
> Hash based HTTP URIs and the use of "<>" in Turtle based graph expressions
> eradicate all the headaches above. We should never encourage solutions that
> discourage or adversely affect the ability to exploit hash based HTTP URIs.
> We always have to look to a Web where Linked Data resource management
> patterns are no different to what we do everyday on our local machines,
> when working with files. Overlooking this reality always gets us into
> trouble due to inevitable real-world implementation complexity and
> conceptual incomprehension.
> Blank nodes can never be at the front door. Their utility is something
> that only manifests way after the RDF is properly understood. Look at what
> blank nodes did to FOAF prior to TimBL's request for everyone to get a
> Personal URI. Same thing re. Linked Data meme, in all cases, the
> fundamental goal is/was to leverage the "deceptively simple" architecture
> baked into the Web.
> Links:
> 1. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/**breadcrumbs/node/71<http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/71>-- Personal URIs and FOAF
> 2. http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>-- Linked Data meme.
> --
> Regards,
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 20:09:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC