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

Re: [Concepts] Editorial changes to Blank Nodes (ISSUE-107)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:48:37 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DAF60A81-BDE6-4E50-95F4-F84438D7E735@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Hi Pat,

On 12 Nov 2012, at 08:29, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Allocating a *fresh blank node* is the action of drawing a new node from the set.
> I don't think that last sentence makes sense. How does one perform an action on a set? And what counts as a "new" element of a set? Sets don't live in an operational space where things happen to them at times. 

Think of it as: “Allocating a fresh blank node is the action of making a new mark on a surface.”

Works now?

>> [[
>> Since RDF systems generally refer to blank nodes only via such local identifiers, it is necessary to “standardize apart” the blank node identifiers when incorporating data that originates from an external source. This may be done by systematically replacing the blank node identifiers in incoming data with freshly allocated blank node identifiers.
> Unfortunately, this idea of standardizing apart applies to the blank nodes themselves, not just to their identifiers.


> (Because there is nothing in the curent abstract RDF model that prevents two distinct graphs from "accidentally" sharing a blank node.)

I'm trying to understand. Can you give an example where we end up with two distinct graphs that “accidentally” share a blank node?


> We could fix this problem by changing the abstract structure of graphs and blank nodes along the lines suggested in http://www.slideshare.net/PatHayes/rdf-redux, but this would require us to take a nontrivial action and make a nontrivial change to RDF, so it is unlikely to happen :-)  Barring this, it is misleading to imply that standardizing apart (and the distinction between unioning and merging) is only of concern to bnode identifiers. 
> Pat
>> ]]
>> I believe this resolves ISSUE-107, hence I'm marking it PENDINGREVIEW.
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107
>> Best,
>> Richard
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Monday, 12 November 2012 15:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:09 UTC