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

Re: Proposal for ISSUE-40 Skolemization

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:38:30 -0500
Cc: "RDF-WG public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5DF91A1C-206F-48A2-8999-3C14E1F24457@ihmc.us>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
I am cool with all of this.

Pat

On May 12, 2011, at 6:47 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Below is a complete proposal including intro text and detailed wording about the .well-known mechanism, based on a combination of the original proposal from the wiki, and PatH's comments. It's also on the wiki here:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemisation#Updated_Proposal
> 
> 
> On 28 Apr 2011, at 06:10, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> I would prefer to avoid the "skolem" terminology altogether.
> 
> I am fine with avoiding “skolem”. But I believe that *some* term is necessary. First, writing the spec is awkward if one has to repeatedly refer to “an IRI that has been introduced solely to replace a blank node”. Second, I believe that eventually we and others will come to use *some* shorthand term in everyday technical conversation, so why not just bite the bullet and define a term for it in the spec.
> 
> I'll stick to “Skolem IRI” for now, until another term has been proposed. I removed mentions of “Skolemization”.
> 
>> it really ought to be capitalized, as it is a direct use of the name of Theo Skolem.
> 
> Thoralf. I have now capitalized the term.
> 
>> It is not clear what is meant by " identifiable by other systems". Identifiable as being skolem URIs? Or in some stronger sense of 'identifiable'? If the former, I suggest the wording "identifiable by other systems as Skolem URIs"
> 
> This wording seems fine. I ended up using “recognizable outside of the system boundaries” to avoid “identify” and talking about “systems and other systems”.
> 
> The complete proposal is below.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> PROPOSAL FOR ADDRESSING ISSUE-40
> 
> Add the following in RDF Concepts, Section 6.6 Blank Nodes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-blank-nodes
> 
> 
> 6.6.1 Replacing blank nodes with IRIs
> 
> Blank nodes do not have an intrinsic name in the RDF abstract syntax. In situations where such a name is required, implementations MAY systematically replace blank nodes in an RDF graph with IRIs. Systems wishing to do this SHOULD mint a new, globally unique IRI for each blank node. Such IRIs are known as ''Skolem IRIs''.
> 
> Systems may wish to mint Skolem IRIs in such a way that they can recognize the IRIs as having been introduced solely to replace a blank node, and map back to the source blank node where possible.
> 
> Systems which want Skolem IRIs to be recognizable outside of the system boundaries SHOULD use a well-known IRI [RFC5785] with the registered name “SteveH”. This is an IRI that uses the HTTP or HTTPS scheme, or another scheme that has been specified to use well-known IRIs; and whose path component starts with /.well-known/SteveH/ .
> 
> For example, the authority responsible for the domain “example.com” could mint the following recognizable Skolem IRI:
> 
> http://example.com/.well-known/SteveH/d26a2d0e98334696f4ad70a677abc1f6
> 
> Note: “SteveH” is a placeholder. Names currently under discussion are “genid”, “bnode”, “skolem”.
> 
> Note: RFC 5758 only specifies well-known URIs, not IRIs. For the purpose of this document, a well-known IRI is any IRI that results in a well-known URI after IRI-to-URI mapping [RFC3987].
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thursday, 12 May 2011 15:39:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:42 GMT