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

Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:04:26 -0600
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, "markus.lanthaler@gmx.net" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "msporny@digitalbazaar.com" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3D59CB0F-2304-4339-8B4C-64C509AE625C@ihmc.us>
To: "Bauer, Herbert S. (Scott)" <Bauer.Scott@mayo.edu>

On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Bauer, Herbert S. (Scott) wrote:

> I've shared Manu's blog post with some of my counterparts here at Mayo,
> and the response from at least one person is that JSON-LD has no real need
> for bnodes as these can be supported through nested structures. There an
> even more emphatic concern that much damage could be done to the RDF
> effort if blank nodes are allowed to be used as predicates.

Just out of interest, can you (or anyone) email me, off-list if preferred, what those concerns are? What kind of damage is seen as possible, if this were allowed? I ask because this construction is allowed in ISO Common Logic, and I am interested in reconciling RDF and CL.

Thanks for any inputs. 

Pat Hayes

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 01:04:55 GMT

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