- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 01:34:12 +0200
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
- Cc: Alejandro Mallea <janoma@gmail.com>, "Hogan, Aidan" <aidan.hogan@deri.org>, Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>
With schema.org and HTML5 we seem to be in the era where structured data on the Web gains mass. But these initiatives don't remotely consider "some placeholder in between". What does it mean for bnodes? Should the cool people disparage existentials and only hang around bars with named universal quantifiers? (next thread, I promise) Personally I'm half convinced by Ian Davis & others and the approach at Talis: it doesn't cost that much to mint URIs that resolve, it works in practice. But intuitively I feel a lot more comfortable allowing nodes in the graph over which we know nothing apart from their existence, and although being able to resolve something from an node identifier seems desirable, allowing gaps feels closer to the real world, the one we're modelling. Either way, the query languages still work. So I don't want to drop bnodes, but have to quote Dan Connolly again: [[ Are there parts of traditional logic and databases that, if we set them aside, will result in viral growth of the Semantic Web? ]] http://www.w3.org/2006/09dc-aus/swpf#(7) Or maybe it doesn't matter whether we have them or not, both worlds can coexist. Why did I have to type so much before that crossed my mind? Boo, now I'm feeling tired, the whole weight of angle brackets onwards. Wake me up if you have a significant celestial event :) Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 23:34:41 UTC