W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Linked Data, Blank Nodes and Graph Names

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 22:42:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4DA0D2CA.5030900@webr3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, public-lod@w3.org
Nathan wrote:
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> "It is important that skolem URIs would be recognizeable.", what would 
> the purpose of them being recognizable, if there were only literals and 
> URIs?
> 
> (I'm taking you to be talking about loosing ∃ from RDF, and others to be 
> trying to find a way to keep the ability to say something, and changing 
> that to "something, let's call it X, that has ..")

As in the requirements section here:
   http://www.w3.org/wiki/BnodeSkolemization
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 21:43:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:32 UTC