W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

RE: bNodes as graph identifiers

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:28:17 +0200
To: "'Steve Harris'" <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00e901ce6045$11595480$340bfd80$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, June 03, 2013 11:53 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2013-06-01, at 03:46, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> * RDF is already too complex for people coming into it to learn
> easily. Every
> >> time we add a new feature to the language we increase the barrier to
> entry.
> >
> > First, this does not change RDF. Second, allowing bnodes as graph
> labels in datasets is not a "new feature", it is simply removing a
> restriction. Arguably, it simplifies dataset syntax.
> 
> If RDF tutorials, or specs don't mention this at all then we have no
> need of this discussion.
> 
> If they do, then it changes RDF.
> 
> Saying it doesn't change RDF because the change in the logic is
> small/non-existant is missing the point entirely.

I think was Pat was trying to say is that datasets haven't been standardized
till now. We are doing this in RDF 1.1. Thus it doesn't change RDF at all.
Datasets simply didn't exist before RDF 1.1


> > Right. Expecting to be able to access bnode IDs from outside their
> > scope is something we should strongly discourage. Even if it works,
> > it is Bad Practice.
> 
> Right, but that *severely* limits the utility of this feature.

Why?


> I'm willing to bet that if you presented this view to the JSON-LD
> people (who requested anonymous graphs in the first place) they
> wouldn't be keen on this as a solution to their representational issue.

That's definitely not the case. In most cases I would expect that there
isn't even a bnode identifier associated with the graph.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 10:28:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC