W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Using bnode identifiers for predicates, graph names

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:32:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPqY83xdaoQ=kO4VUDsH1d-4QvLNq+kj6-Ah0R01C2N6PL1-=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:

> Just because a serialized array of bytes are the same DOES NOT mean that
> they describe the same graph.
>


The only issue raised with the hash of byte stream to name graphs in your
case is that it will always name "anonymous" graphs that are semantically
equivalent the same. That's not a bug, they are the same graph. If there is
a meaningful semantic difference between two graphs then that should be
recorded somewhere.

Your example:

[
  {
    "@context": "http://example.org/mycontext.jsonld",
    "@graph": {
       "name": "Gavin"
    }
  },
  {
    "@context": "http://example.org/mycontext.jsonld",
    "@graph": {
       "name": "Gavin"
    }
  }
]

has only one graph in it. In fact it only has one triple being asserted.
There is a thing, and it's name is Gavin. I don't see any other reasonable
semantic interpretation of the above. Stating it twice doesn't mean
anything.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 21:32:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT