W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2011

Re: a blank node issue

From: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:27:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4D6E8C12.2040702@gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, William Waites <ww@styx.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 03/02/2011 07:21 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> On 2 Mar 2011, at 14:18, William Waites wrote:
>>> maybe some convention or
>>> standard for skolemising blank nodes so they can be 
>>> referred to might be a good thing?
>>
>> There is already a convention/standard for skolemising blank nodes: just use a URI instead.
> 
> But that subtly changes the RDF, because the URI has global scope. 

Is there any practical difference between bnodes and normal nodes,
except the scope (and necessity) of their name?

Best,
Jiri

> Pat
> 
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -w
>>> -- 
>>> William Waites                <mailto:ww@styx.org>
>>> http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww@styx.org>
>>> F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 18:28:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:41 GMT