RE: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:32 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote.


> > You can easily rename each bnode identifier. Even the ones that are
> already
> > there. You can't do the same with IRI (fragments).
> 
> 1/ In this case, with the base decided by the parser, why not?  This is
> only document scope.

Because that's not always true. Bnodes would solve the problem in all
instances, base-less framentIds just in Manu's very specific use case. How
would you do it if the document is not transient but is hosted somewhere
(and thus has a base)?


> 2/ They are generated, not used, so the parser can generate unique
> strings.
> 
> For unique bnode ids or fragments, you have to look at the whole doc
> first to know the string is unique.

Not necessarily.. you can also relabel them in a streaming-manner. You just
need to remember the mappings (old->new).

I think the crucial point here is that no global identifiers (IRIs) should
be minted automatically. Bnodes are document-local by definition. IRIs are
global by definition. Fragment identifiers without base are strings, not
IRIs, and thus not valid in (abstract) RDF.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler