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

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

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:54:22 +0100
Message-ID: <50A1700E.70704@emse.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 12/11/2012 17:00, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 09:09, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>> The *blank nodes* in an RDF graph are drawn from some arbitrary
>>> infinite set that fulfils the following conditions:
>>>
>>> • It is disjoint from the set of IRIs and the set of all
>>> literals. • Equality within the set is well-defined (*blank node
>>> equality*).
>>
>> What does the second item mean? Isn't equality well defined, in any
>> set?
>
> The problem is that infinite sets cannot actually be implemented, and
> therefore implementations need to approximate the definition. The
> sentence draws attention to the requirement that in such approximate
> implementations, it must still be possible to test blank nodes for
> equality.
>
>> It is the same as saying "Given two blank nodes, it is possible to
>> determine whether or not they are the same."
>
> Yes. It's a restatement of that phrase.


Ooops, sorry I forgot a word: "it is *not* the same as saying etc."

>
>> The later say that in an implementation, either the set of bnodes
>> is explicitly known, or the implementation knows an isomorphism
>> from a well known set to the set of bnodes. E.g., assign a bnode id
>> to all bnodes, then one decides if two occurrences of bnodes
>> involve the same bnode by simply comparing the identifiers.
>
> Sure, this is yet another restatement of the same phrase. Are you
> proposing a particular edit?
>
>>> Allocating a *fresh blank node* is the action of drawing a new
>>> node from the set. ]]
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-blank-nodes
>>
>>
>>>
It is not quite clear in what way it is "new". It has to be new wrt a 
given RDF graph (that is, a bnode that is not already used in a given 
RDF graph).
>
> That's not correct. It has to be globally new. Remember, blank nodes
> can be shared between graphs.

Globally new? Bnodes are members of a fix set. "New" has to be in 
comparison with something older. What is the older thing here?

>>> [[ 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. ]]
>>
>> In fact, if the bnode IDs had global scope, this would still be
>> necessary. The "standardisation apart" is part of the merge
>> operation and is independent of the way bnodes are identified. The
>> "standardisation apart" has to be made at the abstract syntax
>> level, that is, the bnodes themselves, not the IDs, have to be
>> changed.
>
> This isn't about the merge operation; this is about the case of, say,
> loading a graph into a new slot in a graph store. If blank node
> identifiers in the incoming data are systematically replaced, then, I
> believe, this operation is safe; otherwise it is not.
>
> Graph merge is a separate issue, and we don't talk about it in this
> section.

If you want to integrate triples from various sources, you can simply 
put the triples in different named graphs, for instance. No changes to 
the graphs have to be made. The definition of RDF dataset does not 
require that the bnodes are disjoint in different named graphs.

>> [As a side note, I think things would have been simpler, IMHO, if
>> all bnodes had a globally unique identifier. It would also have
>> made the discussions on the scope of bnodes easier, since we would
>> have avoided discussing the scope of *identifiers*, and confusing
>> the two types of scopes.]
>
> If they have globally unique identifiers, then surely they should be
> IRIs, no? And then how is that any different from not having blank
> nodes at all?

No, the IRI identifies a resource, the bnode ID identifies a blank node.

AZ

>
> It certainly is a mess.
>
> Best, Richard
>


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 21:53:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT