W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:20:03 +0000
Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B53C8B1E-7CEF-481B-8095-B663ED6AD21F@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2013-02-17, at 16:34, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17/02/13 13:15, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 16 Feb 2013, at 21:19, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>>> I suspect that it's your preference for a stronger referencing
>>> semantics which prejudices you against bnodes as graph labels.
>> 
>> I do not think so. I actually do not have a strong opinion on the
>> bnodes-as-graph-labels issue. What I am uneasy about is that, *if we
>> use them*, they would represent a different semantics as IRI-s which
>> is my understanding of Pat's emails. That is all.
> 
> +1

+1

Furthermore, the community has some experience of bNodes-as-graph-labels, but they were abandoned in at least one system, and aren't popular now - I don't think I've seen one in the last decade, though some may exist.

This should tell us something.

- Steve

PS As a community, we're not good at learning from our mistakes.

-- 
Steve Harris
Experian
+44 20 3042 4132
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 11:20:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:39 GMT