W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > June 2011

Re: JSON-LD bnode canonical naming algorithm

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:45:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4DE6F956.9050401@digitalbazaar.com>
To: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 05/31/2011 03:02 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 30 May 2011 23:57, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> wrote:
>>> or simply author using URIs for nodes having multiple references.
>>
>> +1
>> The idea that there even needs to be a "bnode canonical naming algorithm"
>> seems to me close to proof that blank nodes should be dropped from JSON-LD.
>> And from LD, period. And from RDF...
> 
> We have a classic design tradeoff here. There are costs associated
> with not identifying things unambiguously. And there are costs
> associated with being forced to supply Web identifiers for every
> passing mention of any object. We annoy some developers by having
> verbose URIs everywhere; we annoy others by not. That suggests to me
> that this is not a decision that should be made at the core spec
> level, but one that ought to be left to evolving deployment practice
> instead.

Well said, Dan. Just because a few of us don't have an issue that
requires a bnode canonicalization naming algorithm doesn't mean that
there are others that /do/ have an issue that requires bnode
canonicalization. We should let the market decide and not assert that we
know what is best for the market - especially when we already have
people that demonstrate that they need this functionality.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 02:46:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:34 GMT