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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:21 UTC