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

Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:17:56 +0000
Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <56C2CEBC-F048-4C79-8A53-123C7039DDAB@garlik.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On 2013-02-25, at 17:12, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Monday, February 25, 2013 4:46 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
> 
>> I believe it would be more correct to say that graph labels do not HAVE
>> to demote the graph, they're allowed to if you want them to.
>> 
>> Regardless, the example is valid regardless on whatever graph labelling
>> semantics are being used - within some system with a known relationship
>> between graph labels and metadata.
>> 
>> If the graph label refers to the document which was parsed, and the
>> metadata refers to the parsing (which is a very common situation), then
>> the example is equally valid.
>> 
>> I think you may be attaching too much important to the idea of
>> denoting.
> 
> 
> Yes, maybe I am. The future will show.

I think the past has shown quite conclusively.

Graph identifier URIs have been in use for easily 10 years, the URI denoting the graph is probably one of the rarer situations. It's not caused any problems that I'm aware of.

I'd agree that reusing one URI to mean both a person and a graph (for e.g.) is ugly modelling, and should be discouraged, but that's a separate issue.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Experian
+44 20 3042 4132
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 17:18:23 GMT

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