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

Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

From: Bauer, Herbert S. (Scott) <Bauer.Scott@mayo.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:44:05 +0000
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
CC: "phayes@ihmc.us" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "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: <BEDC7BF6B82627409C6F42DFB4CF1B5F1039F0@MSGPEXCHA03A.mfad.mfroot.org>
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.

Scott Bauer
Analyst/Programmer
Department of Information Technology
Clinical Informatics Systems
Phone: Internal (77)8-3503 | External 507-538-3503
Fax: 507-284-0360
Email: scott.bauer@mayo.edu
Location: FF-3-410-13
--
Mayo Clinic
200 First Street S.W.
Rochester, MN 55905
http://www.mayo.clinic.org <http://www.mayo.clinic.org/>




On 2/26/13 5:53 AM, "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:

>On 2013-02-26, at 11:21, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:10:55 +0000, Steve Harris
>><steve.harris@garlik.com> said:
>> 
>>> Yes, but this can only happen if you merge multiple datasets,
>>> right? Otherwise no-one gets to write anything into the "default
>>> graph" against the will of the dataset maintainer.
>> 
>>> This is related to the reason why I find the idea of having a
>>> single format that can express both Graphs and Datasets so scary
>>> - you can bring this kind of situation on yourself without any
>>> prior warning. Very bad idea.
>> 
>> I agree, but this arises from the existing of a special graph called
>> default and the somewhat non-standard use of the word "default". A
>> longer but more accurate name might be, the "graph that cannot be
>> named or referred to of which there is only one where we put triples
>> that we can't think of a better place to put".
>> 
>> This could easily be solved by putting
>> 
>>    default_graph = http://some.name/graph
>> 
>> in your sparqlserver.ini file and then manage the contents of that
>> named graph whatever way you see fit.
>> 
>> We do not need the notion of "default graph" in the core RDF specs! It
>> is a mistake. Please let us get rid of it.
>
>I agree wholeheartedly, and argued quite vociferously against it's
>inclusion in SPARQL 1.0, but I think it's too late now. The anonymous
>genie is out of the bottle.
>
>- Steve
>
>-- 
>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 Wednesday, 27 February 2013 06:52:56 GMT

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