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

Re: Skolemization and RDF Semantics

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:17:43 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=7Gwf=vfgfWEkFnMJgwDUpsdzHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, David Wood <dpw@talis.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 16 April 2011 16:58, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2011, at 15:46, Steve Harris wrote:
>> My suspicion is that the only way forward would be some text along the lines of: [with apologies for any abuse of terminology]
>> Systems wishing to skolemise bNodes, and expose those skolem constants to external systems (e.g. in query results) SHOULD mint fresh a "fresh" (globally unique) URI for each bNode.
>> All systems performing skolemisation SHOULD do so in a way that they can recognise the constants once skolemised, and map back to the source bNodes where possible.
>> Systems which want their skolem constants to be identifiable by other systems SHOULD use the .well-known URI prefix.

Yes, this is more or less the condition/qualifier I was hoping we'd
find during the meeting. So this heads in an OK direction from my
point of view.



> A cautious +1 to the above from me.
> I think that the documents should have a section that has some recommendations about when to use and when to avoid blank nodes, along the lines of [1] and [2]. Some text on skolemization could go into that section.
> Best,
> Richard
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Mar/0068.html
> [2] http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2011/03/blank-nodes-considered-harmful/
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2011 19:18:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC