W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Request for FPWD via RDF WG of JSON-LD Syntax and API specs

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 15:43:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4FC0EC14.5050904@epimorphics.com>
To: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

>> Based on the definition of Linked Data that the group found consensus on:
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/requirements/latest/#linked-data
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> "An IRI that is a label in a linked data graph should be dereferencable
>> to a Linked Data document describing the labeled subject, object or
>> property."
>>
>> A blank node doesn't allow you to create links between documents and
>> since you can't create links, it doesn't fit the definition of Linked
>> Data that we have consensus on. However, we did find that it does
>> constitute Structured Data (also defined in the Requirements document).
>
> This is quite a religious discussion.
>
> I think that, pragmatically, discouraging people from using bNodes with this kind of wording is a bad idea. For e.g. if I have
>
> <london>  a :Place;
>           :centre [
>              geo:lat 51.507977;
>              geo:long -0.124588;
>           ].
>
> There's no good reason to give the actual coordinates a globally dereferencable URI, it's more work for everyone for no gain. I'd have to go to the trouble of minting a stable URI for it for e.g., and face some tricky decisions if the centrum of London were to move, for example.
>
> bNode genid URIs give us a way to get the system to mint a URI, taking the strain off the developers, while still being able to use it in SPARQL results and so on.
>
> I'm certain that not everyone agrees with me, just pointing out it's not a widely held definition of Linked Data.

+1

We build Linked Data solutions for customers - sometimes the data has 
blank nodes in it.

     Andy

>
> - Steve
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2012 14:44:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT