- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:18:03 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, public-lod@w3.org
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Nathan wrote: > Michael Brunnbauer wrote: >> I would prefer a way of skolemizing that does not depend on the graph name >> and can be done by producer *and* consumer of RDF on a voluntary base. >> It should be a standard with reference implementations in all important >> languages for: >> -generating a skolem URI >> -converting an unskolemized RDF serialization to a skolemized one >> -converting a skolemized RDF serialization to an unskolemized one >> It is important that skolem URIs would be recognizeable. > > I agree, why a URI? Because the only point of this entire thread and discussion is to make RDF more regular, by replacing bnodes with URIs, so that all names in all triples are URIs or literals. Thus, conforming RDF will be simplified from having three kinds of node to two (URIs and literals). If we introduce something other than a URI, we will have gone from three to four kinds of node, which does not strike me as a simplification. Pat > and why invent a new identifier (possibly getting all kinds of duplicates over time and creating a management nightmare) when often people/machines have already given nodes a form of reference/identifier? > > Why turn _:b1 in to some new uri, when often you could just say that _:b1 is short for http://example.org/doc#[_:b1] ? (which isn't a valid IRI but does have all the beneficial properties of an IRI) > > Best, > > Nathan > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Saturday, 9 April 2011 21:18:45 UTC