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

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

From: Conal Tuohy <conal.tuohy@versi.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:56:18 +1000
Message-ID: <512305F2.4040302@versi.edu.au>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 19/02/13 14:11, Pat Hayes wrote:
> But Manu's point remains, that there would not be any way to encode 
> this JSON-LD content in RDF. And since we can make it possible (and 
> remove all of Manu's problems with signatures) by allowing bnode graph 
> identifiers, and since doing this with an appropriate (and almost 
> blindingly obvious) semantic constraint added would also overcome a 
> major problem that we have ourselves created by failing to give a 
> sensible semantics to datasets, this all seems like a nobrainer. 
> Unless there is some other strong objection to allowing bnodes to 
> identify graphs. Is there? Apparently SPARQL works without problems, I 
> gather. Anything else that could go wrong?

SPARQL HTTP Graph Stores?

-- 
Conal Tuohy
HuNI <http://huni.net.au/> Technical Coordinator 
<http://apidictor.huni.net.au/trac/wiki/ConalSpace>
Victorian eResearch Strategic Initiative 
<http://versi.edu.au/about-us/versi-team#Con>
Skype: conal.tuohy
Twitter: @conal_tuohy <https://twitter.com/conal_tuohy>
Mobile: +61-466324297 <tel:+61-466324297>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 04:56:52 GMT

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