- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:45:42 -0400
- 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 UTC