- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:50:16 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 2 March 2011 20:40, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> >> Reto, >> >> On 2 Mar 2011, at 18:50, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: >>>> >>>> Is there any practical difference between bnodes and normal nodes, >>>> except the scope (and necessity) of their name? >>> >>> Yes, a graph with bnodes can potentially be simplified: the same meaning >>> may be expressed with a more lean graph, i.e. with less nodes and triples. >>> If all your nodes are uris you cannot do simplifications with rdf >>> entaillment. >> >> Reality check please! >> >> When was the last time you saw such a non-lean RDF graph in the wild, >> outside of examples and test cases? Can you name a production system that >> routinely performs the simplification you talk about, with user benefit? >> >> The question was about practice. You describe a thought experiment. I >> think it's a good example of a complication in RDF that was added for sound >> theoretical reasons, but has failed to deliver any value whatsoever in >> practice. > > is the message here "blank nodes are useless, get rid of them / don't use > them" ? I would be very happy not to use bnodes (tho Im sure they will always have some supporters), but, that aside, what about existing implementations? > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 19:50:50 UTC